Good article. Harsh but True.

[SteveM]

Academic Freedom - To Be An Idiot

Academic Freedom - To Be An Idiot

Lots of ND fans are racists. Plenty are not. However, there is usually smoke where there is fire. The controversy around the Ty firing will not go away because there was a racial component to it. Did I think Ty was doing a good job? No. Do I think he should have been fired after 3 years? No. I definitely would have given him a 4th year.

When the outgoing President of the Notre Dame states in public that the firing troubled him seriously and an assistant within the athletic department shaves her head in protest - I'd say that is a pretty fair indicator that those very close to the program thought race was involved.

Now, with that said, it is over and done and we as ND fans must move on. However, we take heat for it in the press, because quite frankly we deserve it. Signing Weis to the extension like we did was frankly idiotic. In the last 2 years we haven't beaten a top 40 program and we lose to vastly inferior teams in terms of talent.

I'm sorry, but 7-5 or 8-4 with this schedule is not acceptable in YEAR 4. If we aren't BCS bound in Year 5, we should cut our losses.

Feel free to add as many red dots as you wish - I know the truth hurts. And to quote Jack, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

MWG,

So there you go stirring up the hornets' nest. OK by me. I'll let the other guys club you into submission or rank defiance. Either way, this forum is going to catalyze a lot of psycho-therapist Lexus payments for years to come as its members gravitate to needed (and perhaps court ordered) treatment.

That said, Re: "When the outgoing President of the Notre Dame states in public that the firing troubled him seriously and an assistant within the athletic department shaves her head in protest - I'd say that is a pretty fair indicator that those very close to the program thought race was involved."

FYI, over-the-top, gnashing of teeth, liberal guilt histrionics is what insulated academics do! That's their schtick. Their reason for being. If they couldn't engage in empty protests from positions of imagined moral superiority, they'd have to be doing something else. Like teach more than one class a semester.

I'm not arguing one way or another about a possible racial component of Ty's firing. I'm just saying that pointing to academic angst as proof of racial bias at ND is like pointing to a howling kid as proof that his parents hate him.

SteveM

 

[midwestguy]

MWG,

FYI, over-the-top, gnashing of teeth, liberal guilt histrionics is what insulated academics do! That's their schtick. Their reason for being. If they couldn't engage in empty protests from positions of imagined moral superiority, they'd have to be doing something else. Like teach more than one class a semester.

I'm not arguing one way or another about a possible racial component of Ty's firing. I'm just saying that pointing to academic angst as proof of racial bias at ND is like pointing to a howling kid as proof that his parents hate him.

SteveM

Yeah, you're right. I guess I should not believe a priest and the President of Notre Dame. I should instead believe a guy who posts anonymously on the Internet and who says things like, "liberal guilt histronics."

Totally makes sense. They fired Ty for going 6-6 because that is completely unacceptable. It had nothing to do with race at all. Not an iota. In fact, the only reason Charlie wasn't fired for going 3-9 is because standards at Notre Dame have been lowered to reflect the alumni's new kinder and gentler expectations.

Give me a break.

 

[NDOM]

Lots of ND fans are racists. Plenty are not. However, there is usually smoke where there is fire. The controversy around the Ty firing will not go away because there was a racial component to it. Did I think Ty was doing a good job? No. Do I think he should have been fired after 3 years? No. I definitely would have given him a 4th year.

When the outgoing President of the Notre Dame states in public that the firing troubled him seriously and his personal assistant shaves her head in protest - I'd say that is a pretty fair indicator that those very close to the program thought race was involved.

Now, with that said, it is over and done and we as ND fans must move on. However, we take heat for it in the press, because quite frankly we deserve it. Signing Weis to the extension like we did was frankly idiotic. In the last 2 years we haven't beaten a top 40 program and we lose to vastly inferior teams in terms of talent.

I'm sorry, but 7-5 or 8-4 with this schedule is not acceptable in YEAR 4. If we aren't BCS bound in Year 5, we should cut our losses.

Feel free to add as many red dots as you wish - I know the truth hurts. And to quote Jack, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

I'm just going to have to go ahead and agree with this post. Signing Weis to that HUGE contract extension only tells me one thing: DESPERATION! It was STUPID. Dont get me wrong, I like Charlie Weis. I just dont believe he is head coach material. He has not beaten ANYONE worth a damn since he took over and I know alot of you want to argue but tell me ONE team who we beat that was ranked at the time or finished ranked!

As far as this year goes we are doing better yes BUT.......Its simply not exceptable to be 5-3 right now with this sorry ass excuse for a schedual. I DONT WANT TO HEAR WERE YOUNG ANYMORE. Enough fucking excuses. ITS TIME TO SHOW ON THE FIELD and my honest opinion is this is another failure of a year because we WILL lose to Boston College and we WILL get blown to smitherines by Usc and quite honestly I think its possible to lose to Navy as well. 7-5 or 6-6 is just not exceptable to me and it damn well shouldnt be exceptable to you or the university!!!!!!

 

[SoCalDomer]

Yeah, you're right. I guess I should not believe a priest and the President of Notre Dame. I should instead believe a guy who posts anonymously on the Internet and who says things like, "liberal guilt histronics."

Totally makes sense.

he's not asking you to "believe" him. he didn't share any facts about the situation or circumstances. all he did was show why one premise of your argument is flawed. that requires using logic and reasoning, not belief or disbelief.

in fact your argument above is even more fallacious than the prior argument, since you're using the job/background of the priest to bolster your argument. you're opertaing under the assumption that priests 1) don't lie, and 2) have opinions that are always right.

the fact that a priest and another academic at the school held/hold the opinion that Ty's firing was wrong does not make it so; it amounts to nothing more than their opinions.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

i smell a lawyer

 

[midwestguy]

he's not asking you to "believe" him. he didn't share any facts about the situation or circumstances. all he did was show why one premise of your argument is flawed. that requires using logic and reasoning, not belief or disbelief.

in fact your argument above is even more fallacious than the prior argument, since you're using the job/background of the priest to bolster your argument. you're opertaing under the assumption that priests 1) don't lie, and 2) have opinions that are always right.

the fact that a priest and another academic at the school held/hold the opinion that Ty's firing was wrong does not make it so; it amounts to nothing more than their opinions.

Actually, he didn't illustrate anything was a flawed argument. Rather, he simply moved the ball and advanced some bogus claim that all academics are liberal teeth gnashers incapable of fairly assessing a situation which they were close too.

As to him being a preist that is merely illustrative that he wasn't some LIBERAL ACADEMIC HACK as most priests I know are far from liberal by American standards.

Now, if you want to believe the opinion of some dude on the Internet who is as close to the internal machinations of ND football as I am - then fine, do so. But I'll take the word of the PRESIDENT OF NOTRE DAME. I guess I'm silly that way.

Also, is it the role of moderators to give out red dots? I only seem to get them when you're around. Odd.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

As far as this year goes we are doing better yes BUT.......Its simply not exceptable to be 5-3 right now with this sorry ass excuse for a schedual. I DONT WANT TO HEAR WERE YOUNG ANYMORE. Enough fucking excuses. ITS TIME TO SHOW ON THE FIELD and my honest opinion is this is another failure of a year because we WILL lose to Boston College and we WILL get blown to smitherines by Usc and quite honestly I think its possible to lose to Navy as well. 7-5 or 6-6 is just not exceptable to me and it damn well shouldnt be exceptable to you or the university!!!!!!

i know the "we're young" theory is irritating to you, but that issue doesn't go away after a couple of games. that issue is stuck with us until the end of this year. when you have a primarily frosh team, as we did in 2007, you're looking at 2 years of the youth issue. that's a fact. saying you don't want to hear it does not mean the issue is nonexistent.

i agree with your point regarding the contract extension. it was a weak handed move that certainly made matters worse for ND's past and future. the past obviously being the treatment of weis vs. ty and the future being that we have a mindblowing number of years to honor in weis' contract.

i, however, believe we can beat BC. we could've legitimately won every game we've lost this year. it's certainly frustrating but think you're taking this a bit too personally. ND football is my passion but you have to develop a healthy relationship with it, especially when discussing the future of the program and the success/failure rate of the staff.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Now, if you want to believe the opinion of some dude on the Internet who is as close to the internal machinations of ND football as I am - then fine, do so. But I'll take the word of the PRESIDENT OF NOTRE DAME. I guess I'm silly that way.

Also, is it the role of moderators to give out red dots? I only seem to get them when you're around. Odd.

I'm giving you the red dots because all you seem to do is incite the board, rather than add to it.

please quote to me the portion where SteveM was giving his opinion on the issue. Becuase in SteveM's post he specifically says:

MWG,

So there you go stirring up the hornets' nest. OK by me. I'll let the other guys club you into submission or rank defiance. Either way, this forum is going to catalyze a lot of psycho-therapist Lexus payments for years to come as its members gravitate to needed (and perhaps court ordered) treatment.

That said, Re: "When the outgoing President of the Notre Dame states in public that the firing troubled him seriously and an assistant within the athletic department shaves her head in protest - I'd say that is a pretty fair indicator that those very close to the program thought race was involved."

FYI, over-the-top, gnashing of teeth, liberal guilt histrionics is what insulated academics do! That's their schtick. Their reason for being. If they couldn't engage in empty protests from positions of imagined moral superiority, they'd have to be doing something else. Like teach more than one class a semester.

I'm not arguing one way or another about a possible racial component of Ty's firing. I'm just saying that pointing to academic angst as proof of racial bias at ND is like pointing to a howling kid as proof that his parents hate him.
SteveM

 

[midwestguy]

SoCal,

You can read as plainly as I can.

He stated,"FYI, over-the-top, gnashing of teeth, liberal guilt histrionics is what insulated academics do! That's their schtick. Their reason for being. If they couldn't engage in empty protests from positions of imagined moral superiority, they'd have to be doing something else. Like teach more than one class a semester."

That is an opinion on the statements made by the President of Notre Dame. It is ridiculous hyperbole and a mass generalization. I pointed that out to him. I also contrasted his knowledge of the situation of Ty's firing with that of the President of Notre Dame.

I am not inciting anything. Sometimes the truth hurts and apparently you don't like to hear it.

I'm not the former President of Notre Dame. I didn't make the statements, he did. Believe them or not, it matters little to me.

<insert more red dots for offering any opinions other than Charlie is great and everything is wonderful. We're young. We'll be better next year. Go Team Go!>

P.S. Also, arguing about something and then saying I'm not arguing is not dispositive on the matter. HTH.

 

[NDOM]

i know the "we're young" theory is irritating to you, but that issue doesn't go away after a couple of games. that issue is stuck with us until the end of this year. when you have a primarily frosh team, as we did in 2007, you're looking at 2 years of the youth issue. that's a fact. saying you don't want to hear it does not mean the issue is nonexistent.

i agree with your point regarding the contract extension. it was a weak handed move that certainly made matters worse for ND's past and future. the past obviously being the treatment of weis vs. ty and the future being that we have a mindblowing number of years to honor in weis' contract.

i, however, believe we can beat BC. we could've legitimately won every game we've lost this year. it's certainly frustrating but think you're taking this a bit too personally. ND football is my passion but you have to develop a healthy relationship with it, especially when discussing the future of the program and the success/failure rate of the staff.

Thats just the thing! We could have BUT didnt. Because we layed down and got too conservative which all boils down to........ POOR COACHING!

 

[NDOM]

Hey SoCal? So if you're so giving of "Red Dots" why arent you giving me some??? lol....te he.

 

[SoCalDomer]

SoCal,

You can read as plainly as I can.

yes, and apparently i comprehend better than you.

He stated,"FYI, over-the-top, gnashing of teeth, liberal guilt histrionics is what insulated academics do! That's their schtick. Their reason for being. If they couldn't engage in empty protests from positions of imagined moral superiority, they'd have to be doing something else. Like teach more than one class a semester."

That is an opinion on the statements made by the President of Notre Dame. It is ridiculous hyperbole and a mass generalization. I pointed that out to him.

it may very well be hyperbole and generalization, but giving an example such as he did in the general does not mean he was weighing in on the specific. That statement by SteveM expresses no opinion whatsoever about the situation with Ty. It is, as you say, a generalization about what liberal professors do.

I also contrasted his knowledge of the situation of Ty's firing with that of the President of Notre Dame.

he never claimed to have knowledge of the situation.

I am not inciting anything. Sometimes the truth hurts and apparently you don't like to hear it. I'm not the former President of Notre Dame. I didn't make the statements, he did. Believe them or not, it matters little to me.

opinion is not the same as truth. and the fact the president made statements of opinions matters very little to me.

 

[NDOM]

yes, and apparently i comprehend better than you.



it may very well be hyperbole and generalization, but giving an example such as he did in the general does not mean he was weighing in on the specific. That statement by SteveM expresses no opinion whatsoever about the situation with Ty. It is, as you say, a generalization about what liberal professors do.



he never claimed to have knowledge of the situation.



opinion is not the same as truth. and the fact the president made statements of opinions matters very little to me.

You're such a HARD ASS SoCal!!!!!! If I were a chick I would want to hook up for sure. ha ha ha ha ha

 

[midwestguy]

I'm not going to continue discussing it with you as you and I won't agree and it really would be a lesson in futility. Besides which, your statement below says it all as far as I am concerned ...

the fact the president made statements of opinions matters very little to me.

 

[SteveM]

Late For Your Appointment?

Late For Your Appointment?

Actually, he didn't illustrate anything was a flawed argument. Rather, he simply moved the ball and advanced some bogus claim that all academics are liberal teeth gnashers incapable of fairly assessing a situation which they were close too.

As to him being a preist that is merely illustrative that he wasn't some LIBERAL ACADEMIC HACK as most priests I know are far from liberal by American standards.

Now, if you want to believe the opinion of some dude on the Internet who is as close to the internal machinations of ND football as I am - then fine, do so. But I'll take the word of the PRESIDENT OF NOTRE DAME. I guess I'm silly that way.

Also, is it the role of moderators to give out red dots? I only seem to get them when you're around. Odd.

MWG,

Oh boy, so there's a "screeder" on the loose. I know I can't argue with you because what the heck, I'm just some "anonymous...dude on the Internet." No way in hell am I going to be able to keep up with a Penn grad.

I will point out though that you are inferring what I was not implying. I did not say "all academics are liberal teeth gnashers". I kept that open ended. And it was just a little nyuk-nyuk anyway. But it got you spun up into litigation mode. Hope no kids hit their ball into your yard.

And I'm trying to parse out what I wrote to discover the "LIBERAL ACADEMIC HACK" that you divine in there somewhere.

Now as for Catholic academics leaning shall we say closer to the left, the common understanding is that "BC" now stands for "Barely Catholic". Somebody else coined that one, not me.

And several years ago, there was a major brouhaha at Georgetown because the Knights of Columbus donated Crucifixes for the classrooms. I can't say that anybody shaved their head over it. But the gnashing of teeth over the appearance of religious intolerance was well publicized in the Washington Post.

You know, you may want to consider the Lexus payment subsidy to a learned professional who in turn would help you navigate the stormy reaches inside your mind.

SteveM

 

[NDOM]

MWG,

Oh boy, so there's a "screeder" on the loose. I know I can't argue with you because what the heck, I'm just some "anonymous...dude on the Internet." No way in hell am I going to be able to keep up with a Penn grad.

I will point out though that you are inferring what I was not implying. I did not say "all academics are liberal teeth gnashers". I kept that open ended. And it was just a little nyuk-nyuk anyway. But it got you spun up into litigation mode. Hope no kids hit their ball into your yard.

And I'm trying to parse out what I wrote to discover the "LIBERAL ACADEMIC HACK" that you divine in there somewhere.

Now as for Catholic academics leaning shall we say closer to the left, the common understanding is that "BC" now stands for "Barely Catholic". Somebody else coined that one, not me.

And several years ago, there was a major brouhaha at Georgetown because the Knights of Columbus donated Crucifixes for the classrooms. I can't say that anybody shaved their head over it. But the gnashing of teeth over the appearance of religious intolerance was well publicized in the Washington Post.

You know, you may want to consider the Lexus payment subsidy to a learned professional who in turn would help you navigate the stormy reaches inside your mind.

SteveM

:jawdrop:

 

[midwestguy]

MWG,

Oh boy, so there's a "screeder" on the loose. I know I can't argue with you because what the heck, I'm just some "anonymous...dude on the Internet." No way in hell am I going to be able to keep up with a Penn grad.

I will point out though that you are inferring what I was not implying. I did not say "all academics are liberal teeth gnashers". I kept that open ended. And it was just a little nyuk-nyuk anyway. But it got you spun up into litigation mode. Hope no kids hit their ball into your yard.

And I'm trying to parse out what I wrote to discover the "LIBERAL ACADEMIC HACK" that you divine in there somewhere.

Now as for Catholic academics leaning shall we say closer to the left, the common understanding is that "BC" now stands for "Barely Catholic". Somebody else coined that one, not me.

And several years ago, there was a major brouhaha at Georgetown because the Knights of Columbus donated Crucifixes for the classrooms. I can't say that anybody shaved their head over it. But the gnashing of teeth over the appearance of religious intolerance was well publicized in the Washington Post.

You know, you may want to consider the Lexus payment subsidy to a learned professional who in turn would help you navigate the stormy reaches inside your mind.

SteveM

Steve buddy, you can drop the insecurity act at the door. I never insulted your intelligence or you personally - just your opinion. Unlike you, I don't need to get personal.

As to your other shots: (1) I have never sued anyone as a Plaintiff; (2) I would never own a Lexus - I only buy American cars made in America; and (3) you are just some anonymous dude on the Internet.

I hope you found this post helpful. "Now go take on the day."

 

[SteveM]

Toothless Shark

Toothless Shark

Steve buddy, you can drop the insecurity act at the door. I never insulted your intelligence or you personally - just your opinion. Unlike you, I don't need to get personal.

As to your other shots: (1) I have never sued anyone as a Plaintiff; (2) I would never own a Lexus - I only buy American cars made in America; and (3) you are just some anonymous dude on the Internet.

I hope you found this post helpful. "Now go take on the day."

MWG, pal, how'd you get a look into the window of my soul? This is a football blog? I do existential at other sites.

And sure you got personal. You're just not very good at it.

SteveM

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

This place is going berserk. Time for HCTI and Pham to throw down.

 

[SoCalDomer]

This place is going berserk. Time for HCTI and Pham to throw down.

perfect note to end on. i'll let stoney have the last word.... woops. i guess i got that one.