|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
I deleted all the posts on the Iowa topic that had swerved into religious controversy. Honestly, I don't have an issue with us having a variety of conversations as there is only so much Buckeye analysis to offer. I just felt we needed to first discuss what we are and aren't ok with as topics.
Incidentally, I am not comfortable exercising censorship. I just first wanted us to talk about it.
Anyone want to go first?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Rick Wasmer added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
My first inclination is to say I have no problem with discussing any topic.
But, what positive can come of it?
We all have strong feelings politically, religiously.
Unfortunately, probably the only thing that can come from it is hurt feelings.
But if the consensus is to have at it, good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Rex Holman added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
I understood your troll comment, PSU message board reference and subsequent apology. I thought Reed explained himself and gave reasons to justify the way he thinks.
However, when politics were brought into the conversation, no thanks.
If you want to put your politics into something, start a different thread. As a moderator, I think you did the right thing to get back on topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Jason L. Jackson added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
I would say that if someone wants to start a thread on politics/religion/etc., that the title should clearly indicate the topic. If people don't want to read or discuss, they can avoid that thread.
When it gets into a thread about Iowa wrestling, those should be deleted.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jason L. Jackson's post:
|
|
"I would say that if someone wants to start a thread on politics/religion/etc., that the title should clearly indicate the topic. If people don't want to read or discuss, they can avoid that thread.
When it gets into a thread about Iowa wrestling, those should be deleted.
Just my opinion."
|
EXACTLY
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Alex Creech added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jason L. Jackson's post:
|
|
"I would say that if someone wants to start a thread on politics/religion/etc., that the title should clearly indicate the topic. If people don't want to read or discuss, they can avoid that thread.
When it gets into a thread about Iowa wrestling, those should be deleted.
Just my opinion."
|
What he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Rob Wagner added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
Accusing Reed of coming over to the forum just to troll was dispensable. If you're going to disagree with someone don't take cheap hacks at a person, especially since the reply was totally misinterpreted.
This led to an off-topic conversation, that led to this. Someone will always disagree with you, welcome it, defend it, and reply back with something better than 5th grade banter.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
|
Quote from Rob Wagner's post:
|
|
"Accusing Reed of coming over to the forum just to troll was dispensable. If you're going to disagree with someone don't take cheap hacks at a person, especially since the reply was totally misinterpreted.
This led to an off-topic conversation, that led to this. Someone will always disagree with you, welcome it, defend it, and reply back with something better than 5th grade banter."
|
Someone was coming over here, reading our comments, and heading back to a PSU forum to rip various posters. I mistakenly thought it was him. I have apologized both publicly and privately (I shot him a message he may or may not have received via the antiquated technology of our message system).
I have read the comments above regarding how to address topics and think that's a sensible approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Ron Hreha added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
Tom Ryan is the coach of the Ohio State wrestling program, and also appears to be a very religious man. This will appeal to some people and turn off others. He will sign some recruits because of his religious stance and miss out on others. I'm not for bashing someone for their religious stance, but it seems like these topics should all be fair game on a mostly Ohio State wrestling site.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
While I am not interested in discussing religion or politics on the forum, I can easily skip over stuff that doesn't matter to me or doesn't interest me. I don't think Tom Ryan's religious beliefs are any business of mine but, if they somehow effect the way he coaches, have at it. I can just skip over that post.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Brady Hiatt added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
Have at any topics. We all post with our real names and all should be adult enough to discuss without getting our tighty-whities in a bunch - or we can just scroll on by.
For me, I take no offense at what anybody says about anything on here. Have at it all
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
|
Quote from Jim Behrens's post:
|
|
"While I am not interested in discussing religion or politics on the forum, I can easily skip over stuff that doesn't matter to me or doesn't interest me. I don't think Tom Ryan's religious beliefs are any business of mine but, if they somehow effect the way he coaches, have at it. I can just skip over that post."
|
Jim: I agree with the above, but when the comments seem so preposterous, I default to my inability to understand a statement - hence my question for clarification.
Hank: No issue from me as far as censorship as you've wielded the sword honorably thus far, and have no reason to think you would do so unfairly or carelessly moving forward. As ol' Abe Lincoln said - "Nearly all men can handle adversity. If you want to test a man's character, give him power." So far, so good.
As for religion and politics - stating an opinion one way or another isn't (shouldn't be) an issue, for any of us! Similarly, we should not sink to name-calling. Name-calling? Really!? Because someone has a different opinion or holds a different belief??? We can disagree without being disagreeable. Moreover, I'd venture to say we can find common ground...if we work at it.
|
Last edited by Mark Niemann on February 27, 2019; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
|
Quote from Mark Niemann's post:
|
|
"
Jim: I agree with the above, but when the comments seem so preposterous, I default to my inability to understand a statement - hence my question for clarification.
"
|
Mark,
Truth be told, I skipped over all of it. I was simply responding to Hank asking for input.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Ethan Moore added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
I'm with Brady. Have at it.
I only get mad/angry about anti-Desanto comments.
Have to draw the line somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Censorship
Roe Fox added to this discussion on February 27, 2019
|
Perhaps I should address this as I imagine I had some part in it.
I responded to what I felt was uncivil discourse based on someone’s religious beliefs. Calling TR a tool for it seems churlish and uncalled for as this forum tends to stay above that. He also comports himself well as a husband, father and coach. I would feel the same, if he were Jewish, Muslim or agnostic.
I don’t understand why if someone has a different view about politics or religion than another there can’t be reasonable thoughtful responses rather than caustic backlash. This is pandemic in our society. It hasn’t always been like that.
I also left for work right after posting so I have no idea what was posted. I can only imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
