Just using Steve’s words. I assume then that you also disagree with how Steve presented his argument?
Just using Steve’s words. I assume then that you also disagree with how Steve presented his argument?
go away wrote:
Just using Steve’s words. I assume then that you also disagree with how Steve presented his argument?
Correction: you're using *some* of Steve's words, quoted out of context. (In that broader context, Boyd specifies that there are degrees of culpability too, not just victimhood, for the Guelph crew. Remember, too, that he very directly accuses Coolsaet and others of complicity.)
And yes, I don't agree with every last aspect of Steve's argument. (Personally, I'm not sold on vacating the titles. And sure, he could have waited a bit longer after the Globe story dropped to open up this discussion -- even if the Guelph athletes, far from being in the "shock" they claimed, would have known this news was coming for weeks if not longer.)
But just because I don't fully agree with Steve's argument doesn't mean I think shouldn't have been allowed to make it. Steve presented a defensible, reasonable institutional punishment and addressed the Guelph crowd in a diplomatic tone, and the Guelph alum threw a hissy fit.
Yes he thought they “learned their lessons well” from DST and Guelph. Very diplomatic approach.
If the newspaper headlines were “University coach fired for repeatedly engaging in online bullying” this would all have a very different tone. Matter of opinion and your incoming bias what side you see.
I wonder why neither the Globe or the Star editorial boards didn’t run their stories under the headline “University coach fired for repeatedly engaging in online bullying”? Research? Or their “[uninformed] opinion” and “incoming bias”? Thoughts? They looked at the evidence before they ran their stories and they referred to it in support of their stories and headlines.
to pre-empt grammar sniping --sorry for that first line. Should read, "I wonder why neither the Globe or the Star ran their stories under the headline..."
go away wrote:
Yes he thought they “learned their lessons well” from DST and Guelph. Very diplomatic approach.
If the newspaper headlines were “University coach fired for repeatedly engaging in online bullying” this would all have a very different tone. Matter of opinion and your incoming bias what side you see.
Um, the quote you're using is from *after* the argument escalated. You might remember who escalated the argument: the Guelph crew, specifically when Coolsaet called Boyd "disgusting." When Steve introduced his argument it was in an entirely calm, diplomatic tone.
And he didn't engage in bullying. The people with whom he was arguing aren't children; they are grown adults who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. In fact, if you're defining bullying as "saying mean things about someone else," the Guelph crew "bullied" Steve at least as much as vice versa in that thread.
But this "bullying" claim is of a piece with your "victim-shaming" shtick, which I've already shown to be total bunk.
Interested Observer wrote:
go away wrote:
Yes he thought they “learned their lessons well” from DST and Guelph. Very diplomatic approach.
If the newspaper headlines were “University coach fired for repeatedly engaging in online bullying” this would all have a very different tone. Matter of opinion and your incoming bias what side you see.
Um, the quote you're using is from *after* the argument escalated. You might remember who escalated the argument: the Guelph crew, specifically when Coolsaet called Boyd "disgusting." When Steve introduced his argument it was in an entirely calm, diplomatic tone.
And he didn't engage in bullying. The people with whom he was arguing aren't children; they are grown adults who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. In fact, if you're defining bullying as "saying mean things about someone else," the Guelph crew "bullied" Steve at least as much as vice versa in that thread.
But this "bullying" claim is of a piece with your "victim-shaming" shtick, which I've already shown to be total bunk.
Hey man,
I need to know who you are, because you are absolutely killing it here. No one has better grasped what was actually going on in that FB discussion than you have. Please connect via facebook or IG. You have my solemn word of honour (with the cannuck 'u') that I will not out you. And I take this sh*t very seriously, as I think you know.
Full salute!
Interested Observer wrote:
go away wrote:
Just using Steve’s words. I assume then that you also disagree with how Steve presented his argument?
Correction: you're using *some* of Steve's words, quoted out of context. (In that broader context, Boyd specifies that there are degrees of culpability too, not just victimhood, for the Guelph crew. Remember, too, that he very directly accuses Coolsaet and others of complicity.)
And yes, I don't agree with every last aspect of Steve's argument. (Personally, I'm not sold on vacating the titles. And sure, he could have waited a bit longer after the Globe story dropped to open up this discussion -- even if the Guelph athletes, far from being in the "shock" they claimed, would have known this news was coming for weeks if not longer.)
But just because I don't fully agree with Steve's argument doesn't mean I think shouldn't have been allowed to make it. Steve presented a defensible, reasonable institutional punishment and addressed the Guelph crowd in a diplomatic tone, and the Guelph alum threw a hissy fit.
Steve's AD gave him a final warning and told him explicitly not to comment on this issue publicly, citing a few specific social media platforms. Steve decided to go ahead and pursue the same actions on a different social medium platform.
Most 9 year olds would know better.
SB wrote:
Interested Observer wrote:
Um, the quote you're using is from *after* the argument escalated. You might remember who escalated the argument: the Guelph crew, specifically when Coolsaet called Boyd "disgusting." When Steve introduced his argument it was in an entirely calm, diplomatic tone.
And he didn't engage in bullying. The people with whom he was arguing aren't children; they are grown adults who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. In fact, if you're defining bullying as "saying mean things about someone else," the Guelph crew "bullied" Steve at least as much as vice versa in that thread.
But this "bullying" claim is of a piece with your "victim-shaming" shtick, which I've already shown to be total bunk.
Hey man,
I need to know who you are, because you are absolutely killing it here. No one has better grasped what was actually going on in that FB discussion than you have. Please connect via facebook or IG. You have my solemn word of honour (with the cannuck 'u') that I will not out you. And I take this sh*t very seriously, as I think you know.
Full salute!
Hi everyone! There is big war for track and field and I have just heard that the Steve Boyd was removed from battlefield. But with his enemy the DST not there and the Steve Boyd there for a part of it, the Steve boyd and his athletes must be victorious. I have heard the Guelph is imploding so it must be certain that the Steve Boyd and his Queens can show how grate he has been as coach! This is the proof!
When may we learn the outcomes of this epic battle?
There is no epic battle. There is just sadness for everyone involved. But thanks for caring.
And for all women sexually assaulted, and anorexiately manipulated, I'm sorry.
The school is a corporate structure that desires to minimize negative publicity and keep the private and public cash flow coming in.
Doctor Boyd ( Phd Sociology ) discussed the movement from feudalism to corporate market economy.
It would seem to me that these profit driven entities seek to suppress free thought and expression and impose a type of corporate feudalism on the serfs.
And the past several weeks saw a classic case of cancel culture
Queens :
"Dal Cin knows that she will face challenges, especially concerning resources and funding.
“Our league has just approved first-year athletic awards, and it’s a big chunk of money,” she said. “We’re going to have to restructure to allow ourselves to become marketers and event promoters so we can capitalize on achieving activities that are going to contribute to raising funds for those athletic awards.”
Don't rock the brand.
Globe and Mail:
" Still, Canadian university athletic scholarships, also called athletic financial awards (AFAs), could use some tinkering, he says. These scholarships can cover a student's tuition and compulsory fees in all provinces except for Ontario, which has a cap of $4,500 awarded. To be eligible, all athletes need at least an 80-per-cent average for firstyear enrolment. In subsequent years, the minimum average drops to 70 per cent in Ontario and 65 per cent in the rest of Canada. The admission average is "being debated," Mr. Brown says. "If you give a scholarship for a 70-per-cent average in Year 2 and forward, why not make it 70 per cent in Year 1?" U Sports, meanwhile, launched a five-year pilot project in 2014 to offer more generous athletic scholarships to players on women's hockey teams. The amounts, which will vary, can cover tuition and fees as well as room and board. Women's hockey was chosen because "we have seen a mass exodus of our talent go to the United States," says Stephanie White, a spokeswoman for the project.
This program, which may require donations or fundraising by teams to boost scholarship dollars, hopes to attract more athletes who have played for national or provincial under-18 teams"
Someone has posted that Queen's has been served for their statement. Can anyone confirm or correct that? If so, it seems unlikely that they would entertain rehiring someone who sued them. There was a Boyd supporter on another track forum who clarified that he's not really a friend of Boyd. If Boyd has a friend who could look in on him, it might be a good time to do so. The other track site's forums are own, but for the last several days Boyd was writing prolifically, about his own situation across many of the threads for different subjects. In some cases it seemed illogical or contradictory, for example he said that anonymous posters were to blame for the lack of civility but then became entirely uncivil when describing all anonymous posters (many had raised very reasonable points). I wonder whether Queen's has taken steps to ensure that they have access to that content. If so, I wonder whether it will work against Boyd in the event of litigation, as it seems to fit the pattern that Queen's described in their statement. Good luck to everyone involved, I hope that a fair and transparent outcome is the result at the end of this mess. In case anyone is unaware, this is a link to the statement made.https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/university-statement-regarding-steve-boyd
Td stocks and bizzcoin wrote:
They can sign a petition to feel convival amongst themselves, but unfortunately its purpose is pointless and will not get the coach reinstated because A) He called his athletic director a bully and B) the Queens statement included the terms bullying and harrassment, which that institution is not going to retract because Queens would then looks like fools themselves. Others have suggested he sue. That will be dismissed because, besides the fact Queens is a filthy rich institution and money gets the advantage in the business of courtroom, he was duly warned before about his conduct. I have no horse in this battle, I would prefer he not have been fired. I'm providing some unbiased perspective. I underatand OUA and Usports is happening. Good luck to the athletes.
More inexplicable LR moderation.
Raft of posts, many recent, just trimmed from this thread, none of which seem to contravene AUP.
Wake up everyone!
The censors at LR have been notified of legal liability - perhaps of feasible liability or perhaps simply an intimidatory tactic by some Weinstein wannabe lawyers covering Corrupt U's ass. May have come in the form of a Cease & Desist order or another Counsel notice to the site operators.
If you are paying attention you should all notice that the vaping of this topic is not only affecting the Gryph thread here but also the very recent one about rape allegation by an MSU track athlete to which I responded and then the OP was nuked.... same issue....same response...
This is systematic.
I hope that LR fights back against this intimidation, IF they have good evidence. They have done so in the past for various public interest matters.
At my college, the counsel's office likes to engage in browbeating and intimidatory tactics to suppress info and cases even if they are not correct and will be defeated in court - they do so precisely because there's no downside for them, they can deter the case actually being brought.
A classic method our counsel uses is to deny the case is under jurisdiction for a host of reasons (offense committed in wrong location, not under purview of managers, date is out of statute limitation, abusive act is not in fact harassment when it clearly is, etc etc.). Most of the time, litigants with strong cases that have solid foundation will dispense with these arguments immediately in the courtroom. The defense attorneys do not have to pay in any way for making such claims - the case then proceeds normally - which means, even if they can sweep 10 percent of potential litigations in this unethical way, they "win."
Stand firm and hold their feet to the fire. They usually hate this and typically are compelled to offer out of court settlement if they know they're going to be found guilty.
BTW when you file a case against a college, you should always NAME the Chair of the Board and Prez of the U as well as the usual executive officers like Provost as defendants - these people hate their names being found all over the internet in cases like this, even when they have clearly participated in the culture of denial and harassment... But to include them this way, you have to ensure they are apprised clearly in writing of the original criminal acts and the malfeasance of the coverup and ensure you follow internal procedures even if you know they are enacting in bad faith. Stating to them in writing at this point that they will be held accountable in a court of law for their management negligence in failing to address/correct the abuse after normal channels have also failed, tends to focus them on doing something more constructive.
Make sure you send certified mails to these officers after following the inevitably-malfeasant internal procedures and documenting their coverups thoroughly....
Also, always demand a jury trial - the vampires are allergic to having citizens employ reasonable judgment on their malfeasance....
You could ask me how I know these things. But I think you don't need to. I have had some - well "success" isn't the right word, but "recourse" against such malfeasance before, under difficult circumstances including lawyer browbeating and intimidation as above.
ObserverofTrends wrote:
Wake up everyone!
The censors at LR have been notified of legal liability - perhaps of feasible liability or perhaps simply an intimidatory tactic by some Weinstein wannabe lawyers covering Corrupt U's ass. May have come in the form of a Cease & Desist order or another Counsel notice to the site operators.
If you are paying attention you should all notice that the vaping of this topic is not only affecting the Gryph thread here but also the very recent one about rape allegation by an MSU track athlete to which I responded and then the OP was nuked.... same issue....same response...
This is systematic.
I hope that LR fights back against this intimidation, IF they have good evidence. They have done so in the past for various public interest matters.
At my college, the counsel's office likes to engage in browbeating and intimidatory tactics to suppress info and cases even if they are not correct and will be defeated in court - they do so precisely because there's no downside for them, they can deter the case actually being brought.
A classic method our counsel uses is to deny the case is under jurisdiction for a host of reasons (offense committed in wrong location, not under purview of managers, date is out of statute limitation, abusive act is not in fact harassment when it clearly is, etc etc.). Most of the time, litigants with strong cases that have solid foundation will dispense with these arguments immediately in the courtroom. The defense attorneys do not have to pay in any way for making such claims - the case then proceeds normally - which means, even if they can sweep 10 percent of potential litigations in this unethical way, they "win."
Stand firm and hold their feet to the fire. They usually hate this and typically are compelled to offer out of court settlement if they know they're going to be found guilty.
BTW when you file a case against a college, you should always NAME the Chair of the Board and Prez of the U as well as the usual executive officers like Provost as defendants - these people hate their names being found all over the internet in cases like this, even when they have clearly participated in the culture of denial and harassment... But to include them this way, you have to ensure they are apprised clearly in writing of the original criminal acts and the malfeasance of the coverup and ensure you follow internal procedures even if you know they are enacting in bad faith. Stating to them in writing at this point that they will be held accountable in a court of law for their management negligence in failing to address/correct the abuse after normal channels have also failed, tends to focus them on doing something more constructive.
Make sure you send certified mails to these officers after following the inevitably-malfeasant internal procedures and documenting their coverups thoroughly....
Also, always demand a jury trial - the vampires are allergic to having citizens employ reasonable judgment on their malfeasance....
You could ask me how I know these things. But I think you don't need to. I have had some - well "success" isn't the right word, but "recourse" against such malfeasance before, under difficult circumstances including lawyer browbeating and intimidation as above.
Very true, good post. Yes we are suddenly seeing many posts deleted in this thread and anything relevant to this thread. A lot of filthy rich people in positions of power are corrupt and selfish crooks. Qweens gonna hit delete on me Awwwwwwwwww
Is this thread locked or unlocked? The article linked before showed an intent to file suit - has any lawsuit actually commenced?
So, there was all of this commotion, so many posts, the threat of a suit, all of the forums and posts that were moderated and deleted, and then - nothing?
Anybody remember Macbeth?
"The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."