50milesSE ND
Active member
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 120
Every time someone wishes to make a remark for which they believe there is a substantive foundation, they should stop just for a moment and ask two questions of themselves at a minimum:
1). Does this remark have "credibility"? If so, can I in any reasonable way, transmit to readers why it has credibility so that they might accept such a claim as having some validity. If I cannot in any way transmit anything which accomplishes even a shadow of this support, then maybe I should remain quiet on the claim until I can do so.
2). Does the remark contain any actual information beyond what is already known, and is that information within the best interests of IE and Notre Dame? In other words, the remark should have clear substance ["brings something real/concrete to the table" --- and even innuendos in the right circumstances can do this] which does not leave the claim wide open to almost unlimited interpretation, which is no interpretation at all in the final analysis. And, although some differ about this: I believe that some circumspection should be maintained about how certain sorts of remarks [especially of an unprovable hypothetical nature] might negatively affect Notre Dame recruiting, Notre Dame current athletes and their families, and just common human dignity in general.
None of the above has to be applied to the post discussed above, and that is anyone's judgement. My own judgement on the post is that it could not be clearly supported in any way due to the poster's sensitivity towards his source [understandable and honorable], and therefore, since there is no definable substance in the "information" and a word "weird" used in a way that is open to the wildest out-of-control speculations, that the post should not have been made as it was until something more delimited could be said.
Hopefully the poster will return to source and get more information and the go-ahead to be more specific. If the additional information serves to seriously slander the young man involved, however, I for my part would be extremely judicious in what I said publicly.
This sounds like something Lou Holtz would ask.