Let's see Jenn. At around 20 years of age, you are a college student but feel the need to get a boob job. Did you think that would help you in your Spanish class? Then, after you luckily are seen on a camera with the Brent Mustburger famous quote, you get some attention only for your looks and then you leverage that into photo shoots in Maxim and Playboy.
You use those looks to help you land a NY Jets gig as a "hostess". In every shot, you're dress screams cleavage. A famous football player sends you suggestive texts and voicemessages.
Now you can't get a job and all you want is to be taken seriously with the history of provocative dress. Got news Jenn. Being taken seriously starts with your brain and goes to your mouth.
Are you kidding? Nice job parenting Mr. and Mrs. Sterger.
Quote from: Philosophers on April 13, 2011, 09:49:02 AM
Let's see Jenn. At around 20 years of age, you are a college student but feel the need to get a boob job. Did you think that would help you in your Spanish class? Then, after you luckily are seen on a camera with the Brent Mustburger famous quote, you get some attention only for your looks and then you leverage that into photo shoots in Maxim and Playboy.
You use those looks to help you land a NY Jets gig as a "hostess". In every shot, you're dress screams cleavage. A famous football player sends you suggestive texts and voicemessages.
Now you can't get a job and all you want is to be taken seriously with the history of provocative dress. Got news Jenn. Being taken seriously starts with your brain and goes to your mouth.
Are you kidding? Nice job parenting Mr. and Mrs. Sterger.
I disagree with your opinion of this woman. The way I see it, this young woman wanted to maximize her ability to make money, so she had plastic surgery to increase her already natural good looks. The money she made modeling more than made up for that expense, so it sounds like it was a great business decision and shows incredibly sound thinking.
I'm not sure what her breasts have to do with Spanish class and I really don;t get that reference. If you are suggesting that students should not be models, I don't get it. I worked to pay my way through college, why can't she. Regardless, she was discovered nationally on ESPN, just as every other model was discovered by someone who thought she was beautiful. She parleyed that fame into further modeling jobs and made even more money. Then she was able to get a job as a "personality" with an NFL team. To me, everything she had done up to that point seemed like a great career move. she was making money at a job she enjoyed. What seems bad about this to you?
While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. She just continued to do her job. Later, when her contract was not renewed, she did not sue alleging that her refusal to sleep with the star QB led to her not being brought back. Instead, she just kept on looking for work and moving on with her life. Later, when the NFL launched an investigation into that star QB, she cooperated. Now, she would like to pick up her life and move on.
She wants to make money as a public personality. While I would never want public fame, there are thousands of people who seek this profession. Its natural that she would go to media outlets to further her marketability. Again, this shows tremendous business sense to me. She was the victim of disgusting activity, and instead of rushing off to sue, showed that she can deal with it quietly. If I was in the sports media business, she is exactly what I would like working for me. she seems incredibly trustworthy and very bright.
I fail to see why her dress style impacts your ability to take her seriously. I've never thought she was anything other than 1) an incredibly sexy woman, 2) a sports fan and 3) an astute business woman. I take her very seriously, or at least as seriously as I take any person in the sports media/marketing business. I wish her all the best. I feel badly that this man treated her like he did. Some people think that just because a woman wears sexy clothing, you have the right to disrespect her. I do not.
As for her parentage, I think its clear that you and I know next to nothing about this woman and her parents. But based solely upon the little bit that I do know, I'd be proud if she was daughter. She seems like a young woman who does her job and lets jerks and their comments roll off of her. I think, from the little I have seen, that she was raised very well. I respectfully disagree with your opinion of her and her parents.
Again, another topic better fit for the "back porch."
Spoken like a true lawyer and you make a strong case. Facts are fact yet intertwined with more than enough opinion. If Jen Sterger is an
Good answer, Mike. But, why did you even start this thread, Phil? I don't want to do anything rash with this thread but, if anyone else chimes in and things start getting bad, I'll zap the whole thing in the blink of an eye.
Quote from: NYSPORTS on April 13, 2011, 11:31:38 AM
Spoken like a true lawyer and you make a strong case. Facts are fact yet intertwined with more than enough opinion. If Jen Sterger is an
Quote from: jimv on April 13, 2011, 11:34:38 AM
Good answer, Mike. But, why did you even start this thread, Phil? I don't want to do anything rash with this thread but, if anyone else chimes in and things start getting bad, I'll zap the whole thing in the blink of an eye.
Thanks Jim. I think we can behave. Its just a thread about a hot topic right now thats getting play on ESPN. That it involves a Jets employee makes it even more fun to talk about, plus, I really dislike Favre.
Hey, the Jersey Shore cast will be making six figures per episode each for their spin-off shows. Snooki was paid 32 grand to speak at Rutgers. Think about that. This is the world we live in. These are the values we promote. This is the future--no, I take that back, this is the PRESENT.
Quote from: FuglyStick on April 13, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Hey, the Jersey Shore cast will be making six figures per episode each for their spin-off shows. Snooki was paid 32 grand to speak at Rutgers. Think about that. This is the world we live in. These are the values we promote. This is the future--no, I take that back, this is the PRESENT.
Thats a great point. I mean if that girl Snooki can make 32 grand for a speaker gig and get $100k per episode, she can earn more in 4 years than I will in my lifetime. I give her credit for doing it. If you have something that makes people want to hire you, use it. Even if its just being offensive. Fame does not last for most people, so earn it while you can.
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "
This is the biggest key of all for me. If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored. Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility. Favre is culpable for harassment. Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.
I disagree with the notion that what one chooses to wear has no relevance to their ability to be taken seriously. Most companies have strict dress codes (I myself must wear a tie every day). I have no problem with anyone selling their sexuality, reporters, models, athletes. That makes good business sense. That being said, you can't "cry wolf", if you aren't taken seriously. Ines Sainz and Jenn Sterger had/have valid complaints, but their appearances in the media wasn't because they asked hard line questions, it was because they have epic figures. If I recall correctly, Sainz didn't even ask Sanchez football related questions. And I won't buy the notion that being pretty is a hinderance for women in the media. There are plenty of attractive women who are good reporters. Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews come to mind. It's interesting to note that I've never seen either of them dress provacatively (Andrews typically goes with turtlenecks).
Quote from: FuglyStick on April 13, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Hey, the Jersey Shore cast will be making six figures per episode each for their spin-off shows. Snooki was paid 32 grand to speak at Rutgers. Think about that. This is the world we live in. These are the values we promote. This is the future--no, I take that back, this is the PRESENT.
Was it Rutgers who paid the $32K to have her speak or did somebody else pay her $32K to speak at Rutgers?
Perception is reality. If you want to be taken seriously, lead with the brain. If you want to be a poster, lead with the boobs.
I disagree completely that she's an astute businesswoman. She's the perfect example of a person who thinks for the present while ignoring any future consequences. Jenn, you're 15 minutes are up.
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 01:36:42 PM
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "
This is the biggest key of all for me. If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored. Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility. Favre is culpable for harassment. Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.
I disagree with the notion that what one chooses to wear has no relevance to their ability to be taken seriously. Most companies have strict dress codes (I myself must wear a tie every day). I have no problem with anyone selling their sexuality, reporters, models, athletes. That makes good business sense. That being said, you can't "cry wolf", if you aren't taken seriously. Ines Sainz and Jenn Sterger had/have valid complaints, but their appearances in the media wasn't because they asked hard line questions, it was because they have epic figures. If I recall correctly, Sainz didn't even ask Sanchez football related questions. And I won't buy the notion that being pretty is a hinderance for women in the media. There are plenty of attractive women who are good reporters. Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews come to mind. It's interesting to note that I've never seen either of them dress provacatively (Andrews typically goes with turtlenecks).
Zephirus, I could not agree with you more. Sexual harassment should be reported immediately. Alas, until women who report harassment are not made to feel like they asked for it or otherwise deserved it, its a little unrealistic to ask someone to invite those feelings onto themselves when they did nothing wrong. So harassment is usually not reported. However, I think its wrong to suggest that the failure to report harassment actually means that that the harassment was welcome or warranted. so I disagree that Sterger is at all culpable for not reporting it. The reason is that this thread even exists. There are people who think she asked for it or deserved it. Its why she did not report it. She liked her job. Once the story broke, her job at Versus ended. Its a fact of life. These types of stories are not good for her career.
I also never suggested that what one chooses to wear has no relevance to their being taken seriously. I said what SHE choose to wear had no relevance to her beign taken seriously. What she wore in a playboy shoot was what was required for that job. What she wore for maxim was what was required for that job. What she wore on versus and what she wore on the Jets gameday shows were likewise what was required for the jobs. I'm sure when she goes to her nephew's wedding, she does not wear a bikini top like she did at football games. I wear a suit all day and when I go to games I wear a giants jersey. I expect to be taken seriously despite what I wear though. I'm the same guy wearing the suit that I am wearing the jersey and jeans. If you treat me like I'm a suit all the time, I'll probably dislike you. I tend to think of myself as a jean and t-shirt guy who is stuck in a suit all day, but certainly you dress how you have to dress.
I think you are misunderstanding the notion of being taken seriously. She has been unemployed since this stroy broke yet she had steady and increasing paid employment until it broke. She is no longer taken seriously as a sports personality. As you said, a sports personality can choose to sell their sexuality, just as models and athletes often do. But its not that she is "crying wolf." She is being treated differently now that she is viewed by many as a tramp, or whatever word you like. I googled her earlier today and the number of leads that use the word whore in the page title scared me.
Also, while I know nothing about Ines Sainz (I remember her name enough to know she was the attractive reporter who was involved in some talk at Jets camp last year, but I could not pick her out of a lineup), I can tell you that Jenn Sterger is hardly getting the jobs for her body. While she is indeed attractive, every month there are a dozen other girls just as attractive or more so in maxim, playboy or any of a dozen other magazines that would kill to get that Jets job. A TV gig in the no. 1 tv market, its a dream gig. But she got it. Why because she was able to market herself well. Its a skill that she has developed and I commend her for it.
I also agree that being pretty is not a hinderance for women in the media. Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews are great examples of women who are pretty and do very good medial work. There are a great many others. While I do not know Suzy Kolber's history, I know a lot about Erin Andrews only because I happened to be on a case in Tampa in 2000 and 2001 and practically lived there for 6 months and got to see her every day on the news. She dressed far sexier in her young florida days, and toned it down when she got the network gigs. that happens often too. I'm sure if Sterger ever got on ABC, she would tone it down, but I also do not think Sterger has Erin or Suzy's skills. But Olivia Munn has made millions by being the attractive female geek media personality and there are millions to be made as the attractive female sports media personality. Sterger has just as good a chance as any to get a slice of that market.
Anyway, I respectfully disagree that someone should be punished for not reporting a crime or otherwise disgusting behavior. I disagree even more that the failure to report it is equal to the actual criminal or disgusting activity.
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 01:36:42 PM
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "
This is the biggest key of all for me. If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored. Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility. Favre is culpable for harassment. Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.
I don't hold her accountable for the situation just because she didn't report the harassment. Consider that the incident with Inez Sainz was still fresh, Sterger clearly didn't want that kind of scrutiny heaped on her. Let's face it, when it comes to sexual harassment/rape, more often than not, it's the victimized woman who is put on trial, not the offender. The woman has to defend her actions before the light is cast on the perpetrator. How is that just?
Quote from: T200 on April 13, 2011, 03:21:34 PM
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 01:36:42 PM
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "
This is the biggest key of all for me. If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored. Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility. Favre is culpable for harassment. Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.
I don't hold her accountable for the situation just because she didn't report the harassment. Consider that the incident with Inez Sainz was still fresh, Sterger clearly didn't want that kind of scrutiny heaped on her. Let's face it, when it comes to sexual harassment/rape, more often than not, it's the victimized woman who is put on trial, not the offender. The woman has to defend her actions before the light is cast on the perpetrator. How is that just?
Mike/T200,
I'm not suggesting that Sterger's refusal to quickly report the harassment in any way condones Favres behavior. Nor am I suggesting that Favre's actions weren't disgusting. I'm not even suggesting that her failure to report it makes his behavior warranted. I'm simply suggesting that if she had reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have garnered the media frenzy that happened later as a result of her waiting. She probably could have even made the report anonymously. I totally agree that most women that are victimized by harassment are reluctant to step forward because of the scrutiny it will place on them, but I think it's a terribly weak excuse. I have a hard time believing an employer would fire a female who reported sexual harassment, usually they are more than accomodating to make sure that the behavior doesn't continue (possibly by firing the perpetrator), and that male colleagues are made aware of what is and isn't acceptable. I think not reporting it sends one of two messages. One is that the contact/behavior is ok. Two is that the texts (in this case) were being ignored. Neither sends a distinct message to stop. There was also rumors that Sterger sent a text saying "If that is you in the picture you have a reason to smile", in reference to a picture of Favre's manhood. If true, it totally undermines her credibility that the contact was unwarranted.
I think most self respecting females who are made uncomfortable at work by sexual harassment report it immediately. Until females see it as the best option, this will only be cyclical.
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Mike/T200,
I'm not suggesting that Sterger's refusal to quickly report the harassment in any way condones Favres behavior. Nor am I suggesting that Favre's actions weren't disgusting. I'm not even suggesting that her failure to report it makes his behavior warranted. I'm simply suggesting that if she had reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have garnered the media frenzy that happened later as a result of her waiting. She probably could have even made the report anonymously. I totally agree that most women that are victimized by harassment are reluctant to step forward because of the scrutiny it will place on them, but I think it's a terribly weak excuse. I have a hard time believing an employer would fire a female who reported sexual harassment, usually they are more than accomodating to make sure that the behavior doesn't continue (possibly by firing the perpetrator), and that male colleagues are made aware of what is and isn't acceptable. I think not reporting it sends one of two messages. One is that the contact/behavior is ok. Two is that the texts (in this case) were being ignored. Neither sends a distinct message to stop. There was also rumors that Sterger sent a text saying "If that is you in the picture you have a reason to smile", in reference to a picture of Favre's manhood. If true, it totally undermines her credibility that the contact was unwarranted.
I think most self respecting females who are made uncomfortable at work by sexual harassment report it immediately. Until females see it as the best option, this will only be cyclical.
Sadly, I think you are very wrong that had she reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have. I fail to see how your opinion would even be possible. Also, I find your opinion that fear of reprisal to be a terribly weak excuse to be itself a weak view. I have friends whose entire legal practices are employment discrimination. Sadly, the vast majority of employers take steps that are very much adverse to the harassed employee and supportive of the manager (star QB in our case). (Also its not always a woman, female to male and same sex sexual harassment is also quite common). I wish more employers were as accomodating as you suggest. But its not the case.
Your comments that most "self respecting females" report harassment immediately has really ended my desire to talk with you about this. I think your have a great deal to learn about harassment and this is not the forum for it. Rather than say something ungentlemanly, I think its best if I sign off on this thread. Suffice to say, we disagree and I can't see myself ever agreeing with you, so lets end it here.
Mike - I think you are naive to think that just because there are lawyers devoted to employee discrimination that it means that if there is a problem, individuals should not be afraid. The fact is that many companies will virtually blacklist any potential candidate who sues his/her company over sexual harassment. While there are obviously some very good cases by some, there are others who are flakes. A potential company may blend the two groups and not bother to even consider that person for employment. Additionally, a person who has spent their entire career in an industry (say 20+ years) feels tremendous pressure that if they sue, they will likely never be able to get a job again in an industry in which they've devoted their lives.
By the way, just to be clear, I didn't start this post by suggesting that she had it coming to her or anything like that. What Favre did was wrong.
I will say that I doubt a self-professed party girl from FSU was making astute business decisions in choosing to get a boob job at 18, 19 20 or whenever she did. Additionally, she recently said that now she wants them removed because she said that folks don't take her seriously. She's gorgeous and a 100% diehard sports fan so I give her tremendous kudos for that. If I were her parent, I'd have told her that a long term route to success would probably have been better than making short term decisions with long term consequences.
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: T200 on April 13, 2011, 03:21:34 PM
Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 01:36:42 PM
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment. She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "
This is the biggest key of all for me. If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY. Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored. Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility. Favre is culpable for harassment. Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.
I don't hold her accountable for the situation just because she didn't report the harassment. Consider that the incident with Inez Sainz was still fresh, Sterger clearly didn't want that kind of scrutiny heaped on her. Let's face it, when it comes to sexual harassment/rape, more often than not, it's the victimized woman who is put on trial, not the offender. The woman has to defend her actions before the light is cast on the perpetrator. How is that just?
Mike/T200,
I'm not suggesting that Sterger's refusal to quickly report the harassment in any way condones Favres behavior. Nor am I suggesting that Favre's actions weren't disgusting. I'm not even suggesting that her failure to report it makes his behavior warranted. I'm simply suggesting that if she had reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have garnered the media frenzy that happened later as a result of her waiting. She probably could have even made the report anonymously. I totally agree that most women that are victimized by harassment are reluctant to step forward because of the scrutiny it will place on them, but I think it's a terribly weak excuse. I have a hard time believing an employer would fire a female who reported sexual harassment, usually they are more than accomodating to make sure that the behavior doesn't continue (possibly by firing the perpetrator), and that male colleagues are made aware of what is and isn't acceptable. I think not reporting it sends one of two messages. One is that the contact/behavior is ok. Two is that the texts (in this case) were being ignored. Neither sends a distinct message to stop. There was also rumors that Sterger sent a text saying "If that is you in the picture you have a reason to smile", in reference to a picture of Favre's manhood. If true, it totally undermines her credibility that the contact was unwarranted.
I think most self respecting females who are made uncomfortable at work by sexual harassment report it immediately. Until females see it as the best option, this will only be cyclical.
Zeph,
So you're saying that if Jenn had reported the harassment quietly that it would not have garnered the media attention? Think about it for a minute: an anonymous woman claims Brett Fav-ruh harassed her. You don't think that would get leaked to the media?
As far as a woman getting fired, companies are savvy enough not to fire someone for reporting harassment. They can be sued for reprisal. However, what they can do is make the job situation so untenable that the woman would eventually quit on her own. Not saying that all companies do that, but some indeed do. There's a stigma attached to snitches. Nobody likes 'em. More often than not, women who are harassed/raped are not perceived to be the victim. Instead they are the instigator by dressing provocatively, showing their skin off to a bunch of testosterone-filled jocks. In the eyes of many, they get what they're looking for. Unfortunately, the guys see the tight jeans as an invitation to cross the line. It simply isn't.
Let's say Lucy Pinder, out of nowhere, walks up to you, flashes her goodies in your face, and you comment, "Wow, VERY NICE!" Does that mean the contact was warranted, simply because you complimented her assets without an iota of contact prior?
From this point on, I would appreciate it if everyone here would refrain from commenting on the topic of sexual harassment and comment on how we can manage Non Football Topics. We are not going to re-open the Back Porch.
Here is my opinion on threads that are out of topic or off topic. I think that there are some topics that usually wind up on the front porch that are nice to read and to participate in. Then there are topics like Politics, religion and topics sensitive from personal perspective where discussion can turn into vehement disagreement or lead to comments offensive to certain individuals.
I believe that any friendly topic that will bring the community together is fine. The others are not. Some doors should not be opened and to quote Mojo as Kevin reminded me on Sunday, "There are some things I just don't want to know about you guys because I like you all and I want to keep liking you guys."
This started out with someone commenting on the behavior of a young woman and it lead to a discussion on sexual harassment. That's a topic that doesn't belong on a football board. So, how can this be managed without the moderators being accused of being heavy handed?
Your thoughts?
Quote from: Philosophers on April 13, 2011, 07:39:44 PM
Mike - I think you are naive to think that just because there are lawyers devoted to employee discrimination that it means that if there is a problem, individuals should not be afraid. The fact is that many companies will virtually blacklist any potential candidate who sues his/her company over sexual harassment. While there are obviously some very good cases by some, there are others who are flakes. A potential company may blend the two groups and not bother to even consider that person for employment. Additionally, a person who has spent their entire career in an industry (say 20+ years) feels tremendous pressure that if they sue, they will likely never be able to get a job again in an industry in which they've devoted their lives.
By the way, just to be clear, I didn't start this post by suggesting that she had it coming to her or anything like that. What Favre did was wrong.
I will say that I doubt a self-professed party girl from FSU was making astute business decisions in choosing to get a boob job at 18, 19 20 or whenever she did. Additionally, she recently said that now she wants them removed because she said that folks don't take her seriously. She's gorgeous and a 100% diehard sports fan so I give her tremendous kudos for that. If I were her parent, I'd have told her that a long term route to success would probably have been better than making short term decisions with long term consequences.
Actually Philosophers, I said exactly the opposite. The fact that there are lawyers devoted to employee discrimination means that if there is a problem individuals
should be afraid. The fact is that many employees who report abuse are blacklisted, fired, held back from promotions, given terrible job assignments and otherwise punished for being nothing other than a victim. I thought I made my feelings clear on this, I am sorry if I was confusing.
My only issue with your post was that you seem to suggest this woman made terrible choices and her parents did a bad job. Both of which I disagree with, the later VERY strongly. Frankly, who are you to judge parents whom you do not know anything about.
She has made more money in her career than I have and she is a generation younger than me. I'd call that success. There is nothing wrong with being a "party girl" when you are young. I tend to think little of people who frown upon girls who get boob jobs and use their sexuality to their advantage. I think a woman who does this is maximizing her options and making a tremendous decision. As you said, she can undo it later (and she already has had them removed).
I disagree that getting the boob job automatically has long term consequences when I think its clear for her that it has had long term benefits. Anyone can do basic math to decide whether the medical risks of a boob job (which are minimal) outweigh the benefits. She did that and I think its clear she made the right choice. I guess everyone has moral views that filter their overall positions. Mine are clearly different than yours. I still see a young girl who achieved tremendous success in two very difficult fields, modeling and media personality. I wish her more success.
From this point on, I would appreciate it if everyone here would refrain from commenting on the topic of sexual harassment and comment on how we can manage Non Football Topics. We are not going to re-open the Back Porch.
Here is my opinion on threads that are out of topic or off topic. I think that there are some topics that usually wind up on the front porch that are nice to read and to participate in. Then there are topics like Politics, religion and topics sensitive from personal perspective where discussion can turn into vehement disagreement or lead to comments offensive to certain individuals.
I believe that any friendly topic that will bring the community together is fine. The others are not. Some doors should not be opened and to quote Mojo as Kevin reminded me on Sunday, "There are some things I just don't want to know about you guys because I like you all and I want to keep liking you guys."
This started out with someone commenting on the behavior of a young woman and it lead to a discussion on sexual harassment. That's a topic that doesn't belong on a football board. So, how can this be managed without the moderators being accused of being heavy handed?
Your thoughts?
Vette - we've discussed NFT here like a person wanting advice for a boss who hates him or the Frozen Four or many other things that have no bearing on football. One of the things I love about this board is the civility with which people talk to each other. We're not in football season and as you can see by the little activity on this board of new topics, I thought it was an interesting topic (from a variety of angles).
Sorry if I offended you or anyone. Not trying to.
Thanks Mike for a good discussion. We're on different sides on this. I respect yours.
Phil, I'm not offended but I received a flag from one of the members. We the moderators decided to see how it played out until that flag.
Do you think in retrospect that you would have not started the topic or changed your message in some way?
Quote from: Philosophers on April 14, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Vette - we've discussed NFT here like a person wanting advice for a boss who hates him or the Frozen Four or many other things that have no bearing on football. One of the things I love about this board is the civility with which people talk to each other. We're not in football season and as you can see by the little activity on this board of new topics, I thought it was an interesting topic (from a variety of angles).
Sorry if I offended you or anyone. Not trying to.
Thanks Mike for a good discussion. We're on different sides on this. I respect yours.
Phil,
I think it was an interesting topic, I just disagree with you on a few points. I did not think you were offensive, I just disagree with you is all. Anyway, I too enjoyed our talk. I respect your right to your opinion and thank you for respecting my right to mine. I'm sure we will have more good talks. All the best.
Vette,
Its a tough issue. As you know, I was a regular poster in the back porch and still do not understand why it was put to bed. But your invitation to comment on how we can manage Non Football Topics merits a great deal of discussion. IMO, we either need a "back porch" or we have to have a very strict rule about such threads. This thread did not belong in this particular place. I still think there is a place for such conversation here, but not in this main forum. I think topics like politics, religion and social justice are far too sensitive and involve a great many perspectives which are certain to involve passion. I welcome such passion, but I don;t want to trouble others here with it who do not want such things. Had this been on the back porch, I feel I would have gone into my feelings with zephirus a bit more, and it likely would have involved far more passion and harsher words. I still think its fine for two adults to get into a discussion invoking passion and sometimes even use curses. I don't think there is a thing wrong with that and as long as both members are comfortable, I say let them go at it. Non-violent disagreement is the best kind of disagreement. Its not like we are in a bar drinking and throwing fists. I think its fine to have a place where its not under the rules of gentlemanly behavior and you take the risk to go in there. If you do not want it, stay out. Thats why I think the back porch was a good place and it should have changed and stayed. The problem with it was that you guys were trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. The back porch and the main forum should be run differently, for the reasons obvious from this thread.
But since you guys don;t want to have a back porch, after viewing this thread, I think its best to cut off such threads early. Anyway, thanks for asking our thoughts. Whatever you decide is fine with me. There are other forums for having such passionate debates, and if anyone wants to join one, please let me know and I'll be happy to refer you to one. I can have my giants and sports talk here and have my passionate debates in other places.
Good choice, Mike. This board is really about Giant fans joining together and discussing their team pro & con. NGTs are fine because it's still football. NFTs are good because sometimes interesting things come up from time to time and are worthy of putting out there or put on the FP. On a personal note, I'm really not interested in the politics or religion of any of my friends here on BBH. The commonality we all have is the Giants.
Quote from: NYSPORTS on April 13, 2011, 01:42:47 PM
Quote from: FuglyStick on April 13, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Hey, the Jersey Shore cast will be making six figures per episode each for their spin-off shows. Snooki was paid 32 grand to speak at Rutgers. Think about that. This is the world we live in. These are the values we promote. This is the future--no, I take that back, this is the PRESENT.
Was it Rutgers who paid the $32K to have her speak or did somebody else pay her $32K to speak at Rutgers?
The 32 grand was paid by a student organization, funded by fees--mandatory fees, if I'm not mistaken, but the decision was that Snooki was who the student body wanted. So it was funded by students (or their parents), not tax-payer money. Still, there's something terribly wrong with higher-education if students choose to shell out what amounts to a modest yearly income to hear an orange troll speak at campus.
She's hot. <:-P