OT: Kentucky high school removes gay basketball player from yearbook page

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Yes, it would be a bit like forgetting to put Karl Towns Bio in a UK publication and then trying to claim they forgot. This is Kentucky, this is basketball. He wasn't the 3 string QB or he didn't write a poem. He was the starting PG, the teams best player and recently came out as being gay, and was the target of much backlash and harassment. He wasn't an unknown. Sure it could have been an error of omission when it was put together...or it could have been the publisher forgot to include that page...or it could have been the yearbook fairy (no pun intended) came in the middle of the night and made that section disappear by waving her magic wand....but I don't think that happened.

---

Whew. An hour later somebody says something. You are completely wrong in my opinion, but I could not be more glad you posted. The silence was becoming deafening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Yes, it would be a bit like forgetting to put Karl Towns Bio in a UK publication and then trying to claim they forgot. This is Kentucky, this is basketball. He wasn't the 3 string QB or he didn't write a poem. He was the starting PG, the teams best player and recently came out as being gay, and was the target of much backlash and harassment. He wasn't an unknown. Sure it could have been an error of omission when it was put together...or it could have been the publisher forgot to include that page...or it could have been the yearbook fairy (no pun intended) came in the middle of the night and made that section disappear by waving her magic wand....but I don't think that happened.

---

Yeah, and a magic fairy with a wand could've said, "poof, all the gay athletes disappear," and that didn't happen either, Doc.

I'm sorry you didn't find the real life examples, rather than the fantasy, compelling. That's fine, although again, I find logic lacking in these rush to condemn the yearbook staff.

Here's more.

My daughter is a junior at her high school. She plays volleyball and golf, and is a member of show choir. National honor society, all that jazz. Has been a soccer sweetie, PALS, etc. Heavily involved in school.

I just asked her who the point guard was for her school's basketball team. She had no idea. I asked her who the best basketball player was at her school. She didn't know, although she knows some of the players. Doesn't go to the games.

I just asked her who the quarterback was for her school's football team. She knew him, but some less-involved friends didn't know. And that was a 10-win, state semifinal, 7A team. In Alabama.

It's a yearbook staff with high school students, and they aren't involved in athletics, and many of them don't have a clue.

Listen--it could've been intentional. But this notion that it couldn't have been overlooked is preposterous.

I'd love to read some facts, rather than the p-poor media story that was lacking in substance. Even their headline was faulty. At least, there was nothing in the story about the photo being removed, but there was an allegation that it was omitted. Same thing, a difference without a distinction? Maybe. But it set the tone for the lynch mob mentality the story took, and others have gravitated to with a vengeance.

I hate to see anybody--anybody--treated unfairly. In this case, it's not the gay athlete.

The problem is that there is no necessary connection between the situation at that game and the school's investigation and this omission. None.

Schools are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats above all else want to keep from sticking their necks out or getting in trouble. So in one case they want to sweep an incident under the rug to keep it from being a problem b/c that's what is best for them, yet now they're going to CREATE a problem for themselves by poking a sore subject with a really sharp stick?

Come on guys, that's now how those entities work. In both cases they will do the same thing: avoid taking action and avoid taking blame. They don't take action to create things for which they will get blamed, they just don't. They REALLY don't take action to create problems for themselves for which they have nothing to gain.

Maybe it was one lone guy, a student or someone else with a big ax to grind and the brains of a walnut, it could happen, but it's almost certainly not some multi-person level policy decision and it's likely not even intentional, at least not for anyone in the chain of command who now has to deal with the fallout.

Sure they were dismissive of his incident with the game. If they accept it as true look at all that work for them. But to create an incident that gains them nothing and costs them a lot? Very unlikely at best.

Listen--it could've been intentional. But this notion that it couldn't have been overlooked is preposterous.

I'd love to read some facts, rather than the p-poor media story that was lacking in substance. Even their headline was faulty. At least, there was nothing in the story about the photo being removed, but there was an allegation that it was omitted. Same thing, a difference without a distinction? Maybe. But it set the tone for the lynch mob mentality the story took, and others have gravitated to with a vengeance.

I hate to see anybody--anybody--treated unfairly. In this case, it's not the gay athlete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

So you're saying there are a lot of people there who are irrationally afraid of sameness?

(This word is a piece of Newspeak. Diagnosing people who do not agree with you with a faux psychotic disorder is Stalinism of the purest water.)

---

Parse out four words, then apply your political obsessions to to mean that I am calling YOU a homophobe.

Sorry, but that rings only of some partisan debate you seem constantly a part of, meaning I have made clear on this board how I feel about this one issue. Political debates between "the left" and "the right" are things I rarely engage in. Gay rights is really the only issue I have been vocal about, in a public context beyond a few people, in a long time. Because there has been news on that score, I have expressed myself. The rest is your choice to twist phrases and ignore context.

I made one point with that four word phrase you parsed out... that athletics, gym class, any realm of "toughness" has been a haven for homophobia for a long time. You may not agree with that, but that is my opinion based upon my experiences and the experiences of a great many LGBT friends of mine. Please note that I speak generally here, not at all meaning to declare that ALL straight athletes are like that, nor are all teams like that, nor are all athletic "cultures" like that, but it has been and, to different degrees depending on the places, continues to be a reality.

What? You have never seen bullying of smaller, less athletic kids in gym class, the first or second thing slung upon them is that they are a {insert homophobic slur here}??. Hell, that happened countless times in gym classes, intramural sports all through high school and college, etc., when I attended. Didn't like it then or now, but the reality is that it happens, and it happens in some places a LOT.

There has been a history of harassment of this kid. Acting like we who believe the yearbook fiasco continues a definitive pattern are not "Stalinist" and applying the word "homophobia" to an ACTUAL phenomenon (NOT a person on this thread... maybe you should re-read for context unless you CHOOSE to believe I am calling ANYONE here a specific prejudicial adjective, which is certainly your prerogative) in locker rooms over countless years is not tantamount to calling those who choose not to "recall" that phenomenon homophobic themselves.

I have no idea what "Newspeak" means because I have no online, TV, radio, or other media choice wired for any particular news source. That's something you follow, not me. I do not participate in any political movements or declare a label for my politics. You may choose not to believe that as well, but it's the truth. I am a rabid non-conformist going way back, and not for show. Just opinions like anyone else that are personally mine. I go by my experiences with my LGBT friends as well as my personal observations to inform my views. That's it.

I have no idea, also, what you mean by "faux psychotic disorder", nor how it would define, in any way, the word "homophobia".

Sorry if you were personally angered by my views. That was not the intent.

Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

I suppose every time there is a situation like this, we can just say "probably due to human error".

I guess that can be said pertaining to just about anything, but as MTcatfan has asserted, there's a history BEFORE this alleged "misprint".

JMO.

---

But there was no "history". The school has not been shown to have discriminated against him in the past. What they did was NOT pursue what he saw as discrimination by others who weren't even associated with his school. Maybe that's wrong, but it wasn't an overt act of discrimination, it was good old fashion "cover your ass" work to avoid issues. They didn't stand by the kid maybe, but they also didn't do the harm to him.

This is now a harm to him, overtly and blatantly done, with obvious consequences for the school b/c now they have to answer to these accusations. They really did that intentionally to themselves?

Now, could one person there have done it intentionally? Maybe someone not in the direct chain who somehow intervened to get it done? maybe, possible, but not all that more likely than an error, and if so it will come out as this turns into a dumpster fire.

But "the school" as some monolithic entity shooting itself in the PR foot this way? Doubtful.

And in fact that's why they didnt' stand behind the kid the last time, b/c doing so puts them in a controversy. If the insults never happened then they are safe.

But that's not a "history" that bears on this in any way as a pattern or practice of discrimination against the young man, just a pattern and practice of people doing CYA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

The problem is that there is no necessary connection between the situation at that game and the school's investigation and this omission. None.

Schools are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats above all else want to keep from sticking their necks out or getting in trouble. So in one case they want to sweep an incident under the rug to keep it from being a problem b/c that's what is best for them, yet now they're going to CREATE a problem for themselves by poking a sore subject with a really sharp stick?

Come on guys, that's now how those entities work. In both cases they will do the same thing: avoid taking action and avoid taking blame. They don't take action to create things for which they will get blamed, they just don't. They REALLY don't take action to create problems for themselves for which they have nothing to gain.

Maybe it was one lone guy, a student or someone else with a big ax to grind and the brains of a walnut, it could happen, but it's almost certainly not some multi-person level policy decision and it's likely not even intentional, at least not for anyone in the chain of command who now has to deal with the fallout.

Sure they were dismissive of his incident with the game. If they accept it as true look at all that work for them. But to create an incident that gains them nothing and costs them a lot? Very unlikely at best.

---

Simple solution... reprint the yearbooks CORRECTED and get some 'nads by saying that is priority #1 when you announce that it's the plan at the news conference.

Those poor bureaucrats... I think I will shed a tiny tear for them tonight before I rest my weary head.

I don't agree with any form of bullying. That also includes those on this yearbook staff who may be presumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Unfortunately, hard facts can't be laid out prior to an assumed narrative being written. That is the problem with the Information Age we live in today. Too often, it is the Misinformation Age from both sides or positions no matter what your point of view may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

Simple solution... reprint the yearbooks CORRECTED and get some 'nads by saying that is priority #1 when you announce that it's the plan at the news conference.

Those poor bureaucrats... I think I will shed a tiny tear for them tonight before I rest my weary head.

---

I don't give a flying crap about them, but I do understand them, and I know it happens but it's rare when they stick their necks out like this. That's true of everyone, not just school officials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

to mean that I am calling YOU a homophobe.

---

Nope. It's not about me. I don't care who you're calling a homophobe. The word is Stalinist Newspeak no matter whom you are using it to insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KRANK

I have no idea what "Newspeak" means because I have no online, TV, radio, or other media choice wired for any particular news source.

---

This is one of those cases where you have said far more than you know. What you said in the quote above is, "I am culturally illiterate. I do not read books, and have no idea what literature is included by every educated person in the Western canon."

Moved this to the Barber Shop, it's going beyond sports.

Also guys let's remember we're all on the same side here. Even on this issue in the broader sense, we all will agree. we all HOPE this was an honest mistake and not the young man being treated wrongly and we all seem to agree that if this were intentional it's an unacceptable act.

All we're disagreeing on is whether it was intentional or not, and we're all just speculating.

Should be easy enough for the school to single out who is responsible. And then they can report that to a responsible third party.
At that point the witness for the young man would be outed as no more than a troublemaker. And regardless, a full blown apology is in order, if not a correction imho.

There is that small chance it is a strange coincidence..no one here is arguing it's not at least a slight possibility. But if I had to lay a bet on one argument or the other...I think I know where the smart money would go. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly Cat

Maybe. I would like this to be a case of simple human error.

But unless HS has changed a lot since the Middle Ages when I attended, and unless this small KY town is more tolerant than the Castro in San Francisco, I have a feeling that almost every kid in school would know the guy who came out as gay. For better or worse, I would bet even the yearbook kids would know about him... which would make his exclusion from the basketball page less likely to be simple error.

But, again, I hope it was simple error.

---

I teach in a small Eastern Kentucky school, students are pretty tolerant of other students. If they were going to eliminate him from the yearbook intentionally he wouldn't appear in the annual 15 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Yes, it would be a bit like forgetting to put Karl Towns Bio in a UK publication and then trying to claim they forgot. This is Kentucky, this is basketball. He wasn't the 3 string QB or he didn't write a poem. He was the starting PG, the teams best player and recently came out as being gay, and was the target of much backlash and harassment. He wasn't an unknown. Sure it could have been an error of omission when it was put together...or it could have been the publisher forgot to include that page...or it could have been the yearbook fairy (no pun intended) came in the middle of the night and made that section disappear by waving her magic wand....but I don't think that happened.

---

That means they screwed up the 15 times they left his photo in the yearbook. Tough to believe one omission is intentional, but messing up and not removing the other 15 photos were incidental.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

Nope. It's not about me. I don't care who you're calling a homophobe. The word is Stalinist Newspeak no matter whom you are using it to insult.



This is one of those cases where you have said far more than you know. What you said in the quote above is, "I am culturally illiterate. I do not read books, and have no idea what literature is included by every educated person in the Western canon."

---

All that has really happened in this "exchange" is that you have chosen to re-define my words and meaning, including believing that you know much of anything about how, when, and why I choose to get info and what I choose to focus upon, culturally and literally on a personal level, including suggesting I know not from whence I speak, not knowing my own mind and such. By stating my experiences with homophobia in "manly" realms, I was telling the truth. The fact that you CHOOSE to infer that I am in league with one of the greatest fascists of all time because I suggest that it has existed and still exists, based on too many personal stories that I believe as told to me by friends, relatives, etc., says more about what you want to believe about me than what is even close to being true.

It's an opinion based on experiences. You want to believe I should know what "Newspeak" means. That's some word that political junkies know. I have a lot of things in my life that don't involve rabid following of every news story and political drama that unfolds. But what do I know? Apparently you believe you have "nailed" me as a lying, Stalinist basher of specific folks at Betsy Layne. I believe the kid has suffered from discrimination. Saying so does not make me sympathetic to a maniacal murderer. What kind of crap is that?

So, you are defending every single person who has ever been involved with athletics, though I named no specific person, as never having a homophobic bone in any of their bodies, despite my actual experiences, and then saying so is tantamount to me accusing the entirety of "manly" realms as homophobic, thereby I am unfairly, in some "Stalinistic" fashion, lol, pointing fascist fingers at the people I have not named?

Or is it really that you are asserting that the very WORD "homophobia" is only used by "Stalinist" type people, in this instance, me being the fascist in your model, meaning that the word has no merit AT ALL in Western society? Are all types of prejudice the creation of Stalinist Newspeak, whatever that is, or is it just homophobia? Is that because you believe homophobia is not "real" or that you believe it does not deserve to be defined as a type of prejudice due to conflicts with political or religious beliefs you deem "un-American"?

I am asking because I really know little of what you are talking about with your labels and rather vast assumptions about my life and what I choose to do with my time. Read it again... I said I have no online, TV, or other media CHOICE wired for any PARTICULAR news source. It doesn't mean I don't get news or look into political situations. There are many ways to do that. There are those who more rabidly engage in such activities than others. I know folks who, literally, NEVER watch the news, yet they are quite literate.

The World has a great many opportunities for info, cultural learning, engaging with art, music, politics, and any bevy of hobbies, interests, whatever arena one wants to spend their time in. The fact that you believe I should egage, presumably, in just the way you think I should (I mean you DO know my mind, as you have taken one sentence, gotten it wrong, and then placed words in my mouth redefining your incorrect translation, so you da expert, lol), is not realistic.

You don't know me beyond my sports posting and two political threads, no matter how hard you try to pry out how you want to see me and label me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Moved this to the Barber Shop, it's going beyond sports.

Also guys let's remember we're all on the same side here. Even on this issue in the broader sense, we all will agree. we all HOPE this was an honest mistake and not the young man being treated wrongly and we all seem to agree that if this were intentional it's an unacceptable act.

All we're disagreeing on is whether it was intentional or not, and we're all just speculating.

---

Agreed. My skepticism is my right as is the "other side"'s smell test choice. I get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

Simple solution... reprint the yearbooks CORRECTED and get some 'nads by saying that is priority #1 when you announce that it's the plan at the news conference.

Those poor bureaucrats... I think I will shed a tiny tear for them tonight before I rest my weary head.

---

Are you springing for the money to re-print the yearbooks. $80+ each for 500 yearbooks is a lot for a school district to cough up from an activity fund. Instructional funds can't be used to purchase them, and that's a lot of money to come up with through fundraising.

I don't believe in "type people." People are what they do over and over again. You use a word that diagnoses people who disagree with you with a fake psychosis that serves your political agenda. Do I think that is the behavior of a fascist? Yep, I do think that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

I don't believe in "type people." People are what they do over and over again. You use a word that diagnoses people who disagree with you with a fake psychosis that serves your political agenda. Do I think that is the behavior of a fascist? Yep, I do think that.

---

Again, you speak in these terms that I truly do not understand, contextually.

Trying to use your sentence... you are saying that when I use the word, "homophobia", I am "diagnosing", as if I am a doctor (?) all (?) people who disagree with me (about anything and in all situations over my entire life?) with a fake psychosis (is that what you are defining as "gay", meaning they are faking being gay, but are actually psychotic?) that serves my political agenda, that being supporting gay marriage and equal rights for LGBT in America.

Is that about it? Feel free to clear it up for me because, no matter how little you like my beliefs, opinions, and how my experiences have helped form them, I truly do not get your choice of words and my questions are legitimately asked out of real confusion.

Do you always label people you disagree with using extremely inflammatory, clearly historically anti-American, labeling, or is it just folks who believe homophobia exists and is a real phenomenon?

It's not that hard. Look up agoraphobia, acrophobia, claustrophobia, anything. These are psychoses. They have in common an irrational fear of something. They can be treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Get it? A doctor can diagnose you with them. Homophobia? The analogy is obvious.

As soon as you are willing to use the word homophobia, the heavy conceptual lifting has been done. It is a mere practical problem to build the Soviet-style mental institutions, or the gulags, or the concentration camps. When you have become willing to use a fake mental diagnosis to categorize your political opponents, you are already nearly there.

OK everyone...take a deep breath. Now let it out s l o w l y.

This is all for fun and reading differing opinions. Let's not take offense at finding diversity of thought on such subjects. I swear...I usually type with a wry smile on my face...I often forget that only comes across to those who know me well.
Point is, let's not let it get too intense around here.

Intense? Me? :050:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

OK everyone...take a deep breath. Now let it out s l o w l y.

This is all for fun and reading differing opinions. Let's not take offense at finding diversity of thought on such subjects. I swear...I usually type with a wry smile on my face...I often forget that only comes across to those who know me well.
Point is, let's not let it get too intense around here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

It's not that hard. Look up agoraphobia, acrophobia, claustrophobia, anything. These are psychoses. They have in common an irrational fear of something. They can be treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Get it? A doctor can diagnose you with them. Homophobia? The analogy is obvious.

As soon as you are willing to use the word homophobia, the heavy conceptual lifting has been done. It is a mere practical problem to build the Soviet-style mental institutions, or the gulags, or the concentration camps. When you have become willing to use a fake mental diagnosis to categorize your political opponents, you are already nearly there.

---

I know, eli, I am REALLY stupid, thus you asserting that "it's not that hard".

I don't have some vast understanding of linguistics, where words begin with their definitions, and how they have changed, but I know few people, and frankly you are the first that I have encountered, who would take the literal "phobia" part of "homophobia" and make it analogous to claustrophobia and the like. I realize, now that you have reminded me of it, that the literal definition of the word, "homophobia" is the "irrational fear" you refer to, yet the definition of words change or can be poorly constructed in their origins to define what it is meant to. I "understand" what you mean by a literal definition, but whatever THAT is, the larger society uses it to mean "prejudice agains GLBT folks", which is exactly what I mean, no more, no less, and having no association with a diagnosable condition that doctors treat.

I don't conceptualize "political opponents". Again, that's your thing. Clearly, I am yours and clearly you believe that having an opinion that homophobia, in the definition that I use and understand in modern life, is real and should be fought makes me the most anti-American "political opponent" you can likely conceive of. I find that very strange.

Do you believe that gay people are psychotic and that they don't know their own sexuality?

Clearly it could have been an accidental omission but my personal belief is that it wasn't. That might be a 50.1% it was intentional and 49.9% it was accidental. It may be a "gut feeling" or it may be that since there was attention brought to the situation prior to editing of the yearbook that I find it slightly more beiievable that it was intentional than accidental. It may be that since the section was basketball team, a feature sport in the state and he was a starter, the yearbook staff tends to pay more attention to that than say the symphony band. If they forget to include Clyde Smith off the band roster, I'm probably going to lean towards accidental because that stuff happens. It happens in every yearbook. But most don't screw up the basketball team. Its not the band with 100 people who nobody knows. Its the basketball team in Kentucky. Its the starting PG, not the 4th chair tuba player. Again, that me. Doesn't make me homophilic or heterophobic, because like his sexuality, I really don't care either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krank

Do you believe that gay people are psychotic and that they don't know their own sexuality?

---

What? I know reading is hard and you've already effectively told us you don't do it by choice, but good grief. Where did you come up with that?

Generally speaking, there do seem to be an awful lot of words you don't know, and your real or (what is far more likely) feigned ignorance makes this a lot of work, Krank. I'm finished. Have a nice evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrell KSR

Yeah, and a magic fairy with a wand could've said, "poof, all the gay athletes disappear," and that didn't happen either, Doc.

I'm sorry you didn't find the real life examples, rather than the fantasy, compelling. That's fine, although again, I find logic lacking in these rush to condemn the yearbook staff.

Here's more.

My daughter is a junior at her high school. She plays volleyball and golf, and is a member of show choir. National honor society, all that jazz. Has been a soccer sweetie, PALS, etc. Heavily involved in school.

I just asked her who the point guard was for her school's basketball team. She had no idea. I asked her who the best basketball player was at her school. She didn't know, although she knows some of the players. Doesn't go to the games.

I just asked her who the quarterback was for her school's football team. She knew him, but some less-involved friends didn't know. And that was a 10-win, state semifinal, 7A team. In Alabama.

It's a yearbook staff with high school students, and they aren't involved in athletics, and many of them don't have a clue.

Listen--it could've been intentional. But this notion that it couldn't have been overlooked is preposterous.

I'd love to read some facts, rather than the p-poor media story that was lacking in substance. Even their headline was faulty. At least, there was nothing in the story about the photo being removed, but there was an allegation that it was omitted. Same thing, a difference without a distinction? Maybe. But it set the tone for the lynch mob mentality the story took, and others have gravitated to with a vengeance.

I hate to see anybody--anybody--treated unfairly. In this case, it's not the gay athlete.

---

So did you read any of the articles? The reporter has the accuser and 3 other sources telling the SAME story. Then you have the schools involved, including the accusers, say the story is a FABRICATION, and then "coincidentally" his picture gets left out of the senior basketball player tribute and you find it incredulous that some of us see a conspiracy?

Look will anyone ever be able to prove the omission was deliberate? Nope...but on the flip side no one will ever be able to prove is was an innocent mistake either. This is definitely a he said/she said situation, but I can't blame anyone, who like myself, saw smoke and assumed there was a fire.

I could give the school district a little more benefit of the doubt if not for their response to the original accusations, which was to call the accuser and the reporter liars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

So did you read any of the articles? The reporter has the accuser and 3 other sources telling the SAME story. Then you have the schools involved, including the accusers, say the story is a FABRICATION, and then "coincidentally" his picture gets left out of the senior basketball player tribute and you find it incredulous that some of us see a conspiracy?

Look will anyone ever be able to prove the omission was deliberate? Nope...but on the flip side no one will ever be able to prove is was an innocent mistake either. This is definitely a he said/she said situation, but I can't blame anyone, who like myself, saw smoke and assumed there was a fire.

I could give the school district a little more benefit of the doubt if not for their response to the original accusations, which was to call the accuser and the reporter liars.

---

Its no sweat off my ass. As I've stated, it could be an omission. Apparently Darrel will ignore that portion. I've not "rushed to condemn then". After reading the article, and all the associated links, I simply don't believe the innocent omission are reporting. The administration may believe it but I don't. They may believe the editor mistakenly omitted. As I stated, my gut feeling is what it is. Since there is no standard of proof, I'm free to believe what I wish and have that standard be what I feel is adequate. However, apparently when one does not agree, then my conclusion was obviously "rushed" because had I prematurely and not fully considered everything, and therefore have come to the incorrect decisions which wasn't that it was obviously an omission by the editors. Anecdotal stories prove omission, plus 16 and 17 year old kids never do anything malicious. I know this because my son said so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicat

What? I know reading is hard and you've already effectively told us you don't do it by choice, but good grief. Where did you come up with that?

Generally speaking, there do seem to be an awful lot of words you don't know, and your real or (what is far more likely) feigned ignorance makes this a lot of work, Krank. I'm finished. Have a nice evening.

---

elicat: "You use a word that diagnoses people who disagree with you with a fake psychosis that serves your political agenda."

I know you think the sunshine of literacy and extraordinary uber-intelligence shines straight out of your poo-hole, eli, but that sentence above is ridiculous as a definition of "homophobia". It is very poorly constructed in contrast to your simpler (hey, you know us knuckle-draggers need all the help we can get, so thanks for your charity) definition answered later. You know damned well I was defining "homophobia" as simple prejudice against LGBT folks, but you had to quickly construct that weirdness above, that really is saying a lot more than defining "irrational fears" and it is doing so in a confusing way.

Part of that confusion, and I asked you about it in the original reply to that post, made me wonder if you were referring to "fake psychosis" as a definition of gay delusionality. You didn't answer that. So I asked again.

Maybe because I have been very busy outside of this thread and I am tired, I got a little more confused than I should have, but the quote above is still a mixed up mess that includes a reference to me, personally, and how I respond to others, and you include a personal opinion that I am all about an agenda. You don't explain that you are defining the word by it's root literal meaning and you expect me to agree that such defines homophobia. You don't agree that it's confusing. You have made all of that abundantly clear at this point. Unfortunately, all of your condescending extremist political name calling and shotgun posting, including rote ignoring of PLENTY of explaining that I have done about HOW, WHAT, and WHY I read what I read, NEVER remotely inferring that I "never read", yet you bang the drum because it makes you feel superior, I suppose, is freaking WEAK.

But the worst of all is that you, essentially, have called me a liar with that "feigned ignorance" bit. I contend that you were baiting from the moment you slobbered all over Doc's post that the "silence was deafening" or whatever you posted, due to a gap in your post and my reply (again, I have been very busy tonight), assuming, incorrectly, that my delay in response was due to being "gotcha'd" or whatever. That does not leave you with any sort of moral or intellectual high ground IMO. I am sure you disagree.

I, too, have had enough. Maybe someday I will read some Dr. Seuss, but those big words give me a headache. Cool pitchers dough!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrell KSR

Yeah, and a magic fairy with a wand could've said, "poof, all the gay athletes disappear," and that didn't happen either, Doc.

I'm sorry you didn't find the real life examples, rather than the fantasy, compelling. That's fine, although again, I find logic lacking in these rush to condemn the yearbook staff.

Here's more.
P
My daughter is a junior at her high school. She plays volleyball and golf, and is a member of show choir. National honor society, all that jazz. Has been a soccer sweetie, PALS, etc. Heavily involved in school.

I just asked her who the point guard was for her school's basketball team. She had no idea. I asked her who the best basketball player was at her school. She didn't know, although she knows some of the players. Doesn't go to the games.

I just asked her who the quarterback was for her school's football team. She knew him, but some less-involved friends didn't know. And that was a 10-win, state semifinal, 7A team. In Alabama.

It's a yearbook staff with high school students, and they aren't involved in athletics, and many of them don't have a clue.

Listen--it could've been intentional. But this notion that it couldn't have been overlooked is preposterous.

I'd love to read some facts, rather than the p-poor media story that was lacking in substance. Even their headline was faulty. At least, there was nothing in the story about the photo being removed, but there was an allegation that it was omitted. Same thing, a difference without a distinction? Maybe. But it set the tone for the lynch mob mentality the story took, and others have gravitated to with a vengeance.

I hate to see anybody--anybody--treated unfairly. In this case, it's not the gay athlete.

---

Such stories are great. I recall my HS days as well. I attended a much larger HS, approx 1200 student that was 30 miles from my home due to "busing" so the likelihood of me knowing any random student in my school would be far less than Betsy Lynn HS in rural KY or your daughter's scenario. Agree? In fact back in 1981 I couldn't name one person on the girls swim team except one. Odds are every student at Central High School could ID her because she was the center of a scandal and had recently been the topic of numerous newspaper articles, just like Dalton Maldonado. See when a teacher rapes you, or you announce you're gay, odds are you don't go unnoticed by your classmates.

Looking back through my yearbook I noted places I was omitted or was failed to be recognized as well. I chalked those up to oversights, etc despite being called "gay" a time or two in HS (who wasn't called that in the late 70s and early 80s). However they didn't miss on the important stuff. I'd consider a 2 page spread on the basketball team in the Betsy lynn HS yearbook as important as the Central HS soccer team. I would have been highly suspicious if my HS omitted the team captain, MVP and all state nomination from the page if I were gay and decided to become public.

But you're correct. All that is not relevant to the situation. The question is as simple as who do I believe. I'm less convinced it was an accidental omission. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Crime of the century? No. A huge in justice? Not really. But its a shame because it hurts a young man who represented his school and deserved the recognition. It also makes the school look bad so I hope it was an intentional omission and the negative light that they receive is deserved!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Its no sweat off my ass. As I've stated, it could be an omission. Apparently Darrel will ignore that portion. I've not "rushed to condemn then". After reading the article, and all the associated links, I simply don't believe the innocent omission are reporting. The administration may believe it but I don't. They may believe the editor mistakenly omitted. As I stated, my gut feeling is what it is. Since there is no standard of proof, I'm free to believe what I wish and have that standard be what I feel is adequate. However, apparently when one does not agree, then my conclusion was obviously "rushed" because had I prematurely and not fully considered everything, and therefore have come to the incorrect decisions which wasn't that it was obviously an omission by the editors. Anecdotal stories prove omission, plus 16 and 17 year old kids never do anything malicious. I know this because my son said so

---

That is why I keep asking Darrell if he has read all of the articles(that have the accuser and 3 other sources all telling the same story, and a 911 dispatcher classifying the 911 call as a report of "terroristic threats", and the school calling Dalton and the reporter liars)...I am actually a little shocked with Darrell's hard line with this issue because I would think that if he had read all of the articles about the issue he would come to understand why some people just can't believe in this "coincidence". This isn't simply a situation where a random student gets randomly left out of the yearbook, that probably happens thousands of times every single year at thousands of high schools around this country. This time though this is a student that has had quite a bit of friction with the administration, and has been called a liar by the administration, that just makes the "coincidence" very "interesting". The fact that Darrell can't seem to understand the other side of this issue just seems out of character with his normal thoughtful discourse.


Also btw, the superintendents "you were in the yearbook 15 times" part of the explanation just goes to show the callous nature in which the administration of Floyd County schools is treating Dalton. The superintendent also states that there were "several different individuals" involved with reviewing the yearbook, but incredibly none of the "several" people happened to notice that the STARTING POINT GUARD, and most controversial member of the team(in their minds) was missing from the senior tribute to the basketball team. Come on now, does that pass the "smell test"? But alas, I have "rushed to condemn them"...


Also as an aside, I have actually followed this situation since it began back in April, so I have not rushed to do anything in regards to what has happened...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

That is why I keep asking Darrell if he has read all of the articles(that have the accuser and 3 other sources all telling the same story, and a 911 dispatcher classifying the 911 call as a report of "terroristic threats", and the school calling Dalton and the reporter liars)...I am actually a little shocked with Darrell's hard line with this issue because I would think that if he had read all of the articles about the issue he would come to understand why some people just can't believe in this "coincidence". This isn't simply a situation where a random student gets randomly left out of the yearbook, that probably happens thousands of times every single year at thousands of high schools around this country. This time though this is a student that has had quite a bit of friction with the administration, and has been called a liar by the administration, that just makes the "coincidence" very "interesting".

---

It makes it "interesting" no doubt, but your position that this is some kind of retribution or grudge or other ax to grind requires that administrator(s) knowingly took a swipe at this kid out of spite with everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Like I said it's possible, people can be pretty dang dumb and even self-harming, but just as you see it as too much of a coincidence to not be likely, I see it as too much of an easily avoided crap storm for them to jump into it with their necks out.

Other than not supporting him in this insult thing I know of nothing else they've done against him, and they did that to avoid a controversy and issues. They didn't attack him, they just didn't support him b/c doing so only gives them more work and headaches.

It wouldn't shock me if someone somewhere along the chain did intentionally leave him out, but I doubt it was an "administrative" decision beyond that person, and yes it could just be coincidences.

Garak was right: I believe in coincidences, coincidences happen every day. But I dont' trust coincidences.

So I don't just assume this was an error, but at the same time there have been far more interesting coincidences than this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

It makes it "interesting" no doubt, but your position that this is some kind of retribution or grudge or other ax to grind requires that administrator(s) knowingly took a swipe at this kid out of spite with everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Like I said it's possible, people can be pretty dang dumb and even self-harming, but just as you see it as too much of a coincidence to not be likely, I see it as too much of an easily avoided crap storm for them to jump into it with their necks out.

Other than not supporting him in this insult thing I know of nothing else they've done against him, and they did that to avoid a controversy and issues. They didn't attack him, they just didn't support him b/c doing so only gives them more work and headaches.

It wouldn't shock me if someone somewhere along the chain did intentionally leave him out, but I doubt it was an "administrative" decision beyond that person, and yes it could just be coincidences.

Garak was right: I believe in coincidences, coincidences happen every day. But I dont' trust coincidences.

So I don't just assume this was an error, but at the same time there have been far more interesting coincidences than this one.

---

No, it doesn't mean the administrators took a swipe. It means the student editors may have taken as swipe. Students can be as vindictive as anybody else, and in many cases even more so. Adult usuallyl have a conscience. The students had nothing to lose which is why they could have done it. The administrator have lots to lose which is exactly why they would put forth a "this was an accidental oversight" excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

No, it doesn't mean the administrators took a swipe. It means the student editors may have taken as swipe. Students can be as vindictive as anybody else, and in many cases even more so. Adult usuallyl have a conscience. The students had nothing to lose which is why they could have done it. The administrator have lots to lose which is exactly why they would put forth a "this was an accidental oversight" excuse.

---

could definitely have been a student, no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTcatfan

That is why I keep asking Darrell if he has read all of the articles(that have the accuser and 3 other sources all telling the same story, and a 911 dispatcher classifying the 911 call as a report of "terroristic threats", and the school calling Dalton and the reporter liars)...I am actually a little shocked with Darrell's hard line with this issue because I would think that if he had read all of the articles about the issue he would come to understand why some people just can't believe in this "coincidence". This isn't simply a situation where a random student gets randomly left out of the yearbook, that probably happens thousands of times every single year at thousands of high schools around this country. This time though this is a student that has had quite a bit of friction with the administration, and has been called a liar by the administration, that just makes the "coincidence" very "interesting". The fact that Darrell can't seem to understand the other side of this issue just seems out of character with his normal thoughtful discourse.


Also btw, the superintendents "you were in the yearbook 15 times" part of the explanation just goes to show the callous nature in which the administration of Floyd County schools is treating Dalton. The superintendent also states that there were "several different individuals" involved with reviewing the yearbook, but incredibly none of the "several" people happened to notice that the STARTING POINT GUARD, and most controversial member of the team(in their minds) was missing from the senior tribute to the basketball team. Come on now, does that pass the "smell test"? But alas, I have "rushed to condemn them"...


Also as an aside, I have actually followed this situation since it began back in April, so I have not rushed to do anything in regards to what has happened...

---

We have approximately 440 students in our school, the teacher in charge of the yearbook can't name more than a few starters on our girls or boys basketball teams. This is why I can believe it was an inadvertent omission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

could definitely have been a student, no doubt.

---

Administrators are pretty much hands off when it comes to yearbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

We have approximately 440 students in our school, the teacher in charge of the yearbook can't name more than a few starters on our girls or boys basketball teams. This is why I can believe it was an inadvertent omission.

---

Absolutely. Or a student, who is responsible in my kids' school (and maybe yours, too). And it's generally a nerdy, don't go to games, have their own thing kinda kid--nothing wrong with that, of course.

MT, I'm not trying to ignore you. I've read every word of all articles, and they're pretty lacking in direct correlation, and pretty high in forming an agenda. We've seen sports articles similarly done that have attacked UK or John Calipari, and generally see through them. I'd love to see the same here.

I generally make my point, and find that, in cases like this, there's little convincing of others who hold contrary points. I mean no ill will with it; I just find it pretty much a waste of time to continue down the same trek.

I've given numerous personal examples. I know this to be true, and not fantastical; that there are plenty of scenarios in which the race to condemnation is a lynch mob without evidence.

People can believe what they want to believe. And my belief may be that it was intentional, or it may be that it was negligent. The thing is, my posts do not depend on what a person believes, but what is a fair procedure and what is reasonable and logically consistent.

My post here is a little like George Burns talking to John Denver in, "Oh, God." Denver is frustrated because people don't believe that he's seen God, in the form of George Burns. Burns tells him that his job is done in just sewing the seeds. I don't get frustrated anymore since I adopted that position; and I find generally others don't get frustrated as much when I allow them to have their last say or two or three without my corresponding diametrically opposed viewpoint. I hope it didn't offend.

Seldom have I seen a wrong opinion here on this site. Only opinions I sometimes disagree with.

Have not read any of the articles nor will I, reading here is enough

Could it gave been a mistake, most definite. Try proof reading something with that many pictures, stories whatever and there will be mistakes. I have proof read many ads, many catalogs, papers, articles and mistakes happen all the time regardless of how many times you look at something. Mick has done the same thing.

My best mistake was a double truck AD...both pages of the paper....we did in Hopkinsville for JC Penney when I was a senior merchandise mgr for them. Paper came out once a week and each of us was responsible for proofing our part of the AD, I proofed mine and initialed it
Paper came out that Wed evening and I immediately called the asst mgr in fear.
The men's dept was one of my areas and we marked down some men's double knit leisure suits for $14.99.
Well first thing Thursday morning in comes two retired gentlemen that wanted to see our
DOUBLE KNIt SHITS for $14.99. Then they died laughing. Thankfully they were the only ones who mentioned my Knit SHITs that were on sale

When you look at things you are familiar with or totally unfamiliar with, you think you see what you are supposed to be seeing even though it's not there

**** happens, even double knit ones :)

UK basketball's history with the NCAA leads many to believe we were and are targeted by that entity. By using the logic heralded here I now find that quite a reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

UK basketball's history with the NCAA leads many to believe we were and are targeted by that entity. By using the logic heralded here I now find that quite a reach.

---

So if I believe in one "conspiracy", one backed up by a mound of actual events spanning years, I have to believe in them all even before there is an investigation?

There is a pattern of different standards for different schools by the ncaa. Has this high school done anything to form a pattern of discrimination to this point? They dismissed this kids probably valid claims of having been insulted during a road game, that seems to be it to this point. That's not even close to the pattern of behavior of the ncaa, but I have to accept it bc I accept the other?

The kid was most likely taunted, and felt the school should do something about it, the school chose to try to avoid the controversy and let it go. That's created an issue between the kid and the school, and maybe motivated someone to retaliate against him and maybe it was just a mistake, we don't know.

It's also as likely the retaliation wasn't bc he is gay as much as the rift created between the parties, but it's a very petty way to do it that creates more headaches for the administration with no real gain. That's why I'm betting if it was done it was by someone lower down who didn't think of how big the issue might become.