-2- for marko the Culturally-Insensitive Anti-Semite Hating-on-Seminole-Indians Racist Pig

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 10:24 PM. Reason : j/k you know NCSU and TWW love you marko ]

7/11/2006 10:21:34 PM

7/11/2006 10:22:40 PM

are you people really this fucking ignorant?

can you only image concepts in black and white?

is it that your brains have just not finished developing to the point that you can conceptualize anything beyond the concrete??

get it through your heads that this is not a victorian morality or big-brother censorship conspiracy.

No one cares if college guys run around with their asses out in some sort of St. Pattys day sausage fest. In fact, people have come to expect it of college students. And yes you can print a picture of it on front page Technician on any normal day.

However, NC State is *not* going to feature it in a prominent edition geared towards INCOMING FRESHMEN AND THEIR PARENTS.

NC State, as an institution, is not going to allow it to be held up as some sort of standard example for 17-18 year olds and their parents as if to say "Hey, Y'all, Bare-Assed Men with Codpieces Gang-Groping an Errant Female is one of our Revered Campus Traditions"

I mean look at it for chrissakes. It looks like a Drunken Leprechaun Production of Alex and his Droogs performing the rape scene from A Clockwork Orange.

Print it on your front page Technician every goddamned day if thats what makes you happy.

But you're just not going to feature it in the Orientation Issue for Ma and Pa to see out in Bumfuck, NC, as they try to cope with the realization that their little 17/18 year old girl is going off to the big college in big-city Raleigh, NC.

The provost, for one, is Im sure looking out for his own ass. He can quite imagine having to go before the NC General Assembly during a round of higher education budget hearings to explain just "whut tha hell are them nekkid men doin with that gal there in your school's paper", after a bunch of christian conservatives have called their state congressmen to complain.

Are you even paying attention to the national debate over Duke Lacrosse? this shit is not local to the triangle. I'm on the west coast, and its constant news over here.

you think any institution is going to allow the perception that they encourage or permit sexual harassment in any form? youre fucking stupid if you think this is some sort of crackdown on your "free speech" rights.



[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2006 10:49:45 PM

wow... I'm actually saddened I read all that... from someone that basically admitted in the same post they pretty clear have no fucking clue what happened... priceless, although typical for teh L3ft I suppose...

gg joe_schmoe, carry on 

7/11/2006 10:53:54 PM

i admitted that i have no clue as to what is going on? not sure where that happened.

but better yet, why dont you tell me when you think it is appropriate for an institution to encourage the perception that they tolerate, or celebrate even, an atmosphere of sexual harassment?

7/11/2006 10:57:47 PM

so tell me somethin, joe... why did the admin wait until an hour and a half until the people had to start stuffing the fucking orientation packets to say "uuuhhhhh, we won't allow this..."? They had the shit for 2 weeks, ya know...

7/11/2006 11:06:09 PM

^^

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: i admitted that i have no clue as to what is going on? not sure where that happened."

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: However, NC State is *not* going to feature it in a prominent edition geared towards INCOMING FRESHMEN AND THEIR PARENTS."

you do realize the "prominent edition" of Technician "geared towards INCOMING FRESHMAN AND THEIR PARENTS" had both the picture and the controversy on the front page, right?

the flyers were taken out of a nondescript folder stuff with 60+ pages of other student organizations' shit. had the Administration done nothing with it, 90% of them probably would have been tossed without ever being read... 

7/11/2006 11:13:57 PM

^^ i dont know... incompetence maybe?

or maybe, as bridget already suggested, they've been busy and shit.


or... and this is just speculation ... it got overlooked at first because it was Student Media, people werent expecting a sausagefest gang-grope from SMA.

maybe the overworked, over-rushed reviewers originally thought "meh.. no big deal."

then someone else, with a little more foresight, took another look and said, "whoa. hey Provost... maybe you oughta check this one out before we ship it."



[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ^^]

7/11/2006 11:15:57 PM

I still say you need to get in touch with W. I'm sure he'd love to hear your theories on when it's OK to ignore the law to avoid offending people...

7/11/2006 11:17:32 PM

so, they sat on shit for 2 weeks and then decided to look at it?

or, they decided to be slack and say "I'm sure it'll be ok... SMA hasn't done anything sketch in the past 2 years like steal tickets or publish articles calling girls sluts or publish columns telling people how to get away w/ drunk driving." that's an even better explanation

7/11/2006 11:18:50 PM

and I'm still trying to figure out what kind of semi-literate bastards we let into this University, that people can't comprehend a caption...

7/11/2006 11:19:33 PM

well, we could take that picture where the vietnamese guy is being shot in the head and put a caption beneath it that says "This guy is being showed the finer points of gun safety," but that wouldn't make it any more true...

[/aging liberal hippie douche]

7/11/2006 11:22:59 PM

Quote :

"TGD:it's OK to ignore the law to avoid offending people"

o rly.

which law is it that was ignored? the law that guarantees students to use state university money to print flier that the univeristy finds objectionable?

yeah. okay.




[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 11:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2006 11:23:37 PM

Quote :

"what kind of semi-literate bastards we let into this University, that people can't comprehend a caption... "

-1- it isnt about the caption. pictures are more powerful than captions, and captions are often ignored.

-2- it isnt so much about the students, but about their parents and alumni... and through them, the state legislators.

7/11/2006 11:29:33 PM

Quote :

"you do realize the "prominent edition" of Technician ... had both the picture and the controversy on the front page, right? "

no it didnt. the front page you mention was from MARCH.

but the fliers are part of an orientation packet that is both included with the orientation issue, and to be passed out at orientation events.

thats where NCSU, as an institution, has the problem.

7/11/2006 11:32:41 PM

^

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: no it didnt. the front page you mention was from MARCH."

If you're on the West Coast, I guess I can't blame you for not picking up the paper that's been sitting out all week. If you happen to be back in town, take a look at the front page.

---

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: which law is it that was ignored? the law that guarantees students to use state university money to print flier that the univeristy finds objectionable? yeah. okay."

You do realize Technician sells ads, right? And that ad sales cover pretty much all of Technician's budget?

And regardless of that... you do realize there's plenty of case law on freedom of the press applying to student newspapers as well, I assume?

I thought you people on teh L3ft were all about some First Amendment...

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : seriously, I can get you a job in the W White House]

7/12/2006 12:32:55 AM

I hope that the technician puts all of it's intellectual weight behind their proposed right to spread that disgusting photo. It would just serve to remind everyone how self-involved and irrelevant the technician truly is. Besides, if they really can survive off advertisements then lets cut it off from the university so they can be free to print whatever w/o dispute from the administration. Anyway who cares? This is stupid.

7/12/2006 1:32:18 AM

Quote :

"If you're on the West Coast, I guess I can't blame you for not picking up the paper that's been sitting out all week. If you happen to be back in town, take a look at the front page."

okay. whoops. -- but hey, didn't they just do that because of the flier censorship?

Quote :

"Technician sells ads, right? And that ad sales cover pretty much all of Technician's budget"

Im talking about the SMA.

and i dont know the details of the Technicians budget. but i do know they arent paying for their campus space or their equipment, and so are subsidized by tax dollars and student fees. The fact that they are the "official" NC State University student paper, requires them to follow NC State's rules.

In contrast, "The Wolf Web" is not affiliated with NC State in any way, so has no need to consider any of NC State's interests.

and sorry, theres no case law that grants the student paper of a public university carte blanche constitutional freedom of the press. you cant find a single instance of such a ruling.

Quote :

"I thought you people on teh L3ft were all about some First Amendment... "

im all for First Amendment protections, but im not one of these fools who think it applies to situations that was never intended.

for instance, are you going to tell me that I can talk all sorts of shit about my employer and co-workers on my blog, and my employer cant do anything about it?

Quote :

"seriously, I can get you a job in the W White House"

i doubt that. they dont let freedom-hating terrorist-lovers in the white house anymore.

not since bill left, anyhow.






[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 2:27 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2006 2:14:36 AM

I just figured it out: The Shamrock Streakers should've stuck FOUR-LEAF CLOVERS on their asses. Now I understand the bad luck. Well, better luck next time.

7/12/2006 2:46:29 AM

Quote :

"TGD: Because no one said anything about it when it ran on the front page of the paper back in March You've got ~30,000 students here, plus who knows how many additional faculty and staff. A good chunk of them read Technician (particularly the senior Administrators and Board of Trustees, who catch flak if alumni find anything offensive). And as last year's assorted controversies illustrated, like the 'sorostitutes' issue, any sizeable subset of all those eyeballs will take offense at some of the smallest things ever printed."

I didn't know it had already been printed. I don't keep up with this shit, and none of the recent articles I read said it had already been printed; they haven't been very informative beyond "this is what was done and this is why we don't like it." I apologize for suggesting that they did it on purpose to incite controversy...I was trying to get more from a topic that I felt was kinda boring...however...

Quote :

"TGD: So with all those eyes looking at a front-page story of guys in thongs back in March, no one (including the Provost) says anything -- so why would the newspaper staff think a 1) smaller picture 2) mixed in with a bunch of other pictures 3) in a recruitment flyer 4) mixed in with a bunch of other flyers would be any different?"

Maybe there were complaints when it ran the first time. Maybe the folks who decided to use the photo again knew about the complaints. I dunno. Obviously now I think my "purposefully inciting controversy" suggestion is way off, but I don't think the apparent lack of comment before necessarily means the picture ran smoothly with no complaint...in fact, I can't imagine that photo running without any complaints.

And I still stand by my original comment:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I think it's offensive, and I think it should have been printed."

LOL, it's an easy position to take...

And to all the folks who are confused about why I find the photo offensive...I'm confused about why y'all are so confused.

[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 4:09 AM. Reason : sss]

7/12/2006 4:08:31 AM

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: and sorry, theres no case law that grants the student paper of a public university carte blanche constitutional freedom of the press. you cant find a single instance of such a ruling."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

are you sure you're not a closet Republican?... 

7/12/2006 7:05:26 AM

I think it'd be good to remember that the flier in question wasn't exactly something that Technician was publishing in the same sense that they would publish a paper. It was an advertisement for the paper itself that was in a collection of other materials released by the university for the benefit of incoming students.

The issue is that the paper submitted their advertisements (which they paid for with their own money) for the packet through the appropriate process, and as far as they knew the fliers were considered acceptable. Then the administration pulled a bitch move and decided (justly or unjustly) to remove the articles at the last minute.

If y'all really want to talk about First Amendment rights, how about a discussion of the University's right to "publish" what they want in their orientation packets. Although, granted, if they had a problem with the fliers, they should have expressed that a LONG time ago.

This picture has run front page in Technician, and hasn't run into any problems before. The administration wasn't looking to censor the newspaper, they were just trying to control content in their orientation packet (albeit through an uncalled for, bitch move).

7/12/2006 11:30:42 AM

Quote :

"i doubt that. they dont let freedom-hating terrorist-lovers in the white house anymore. not since bill left, anyhow."

Did the 9-11 commission know about this?

7/12/2006 1:53:41 PM

What you and some others obviously fail to understand, joe_schmoe, is the concept of freedom of the press and free speech rights, which are covered by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. A ruling has been made in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the subject of editorial freedom of college newspapers, but North Carolina is not a part of that circuit and is not directly subject to the ruling (we're in the 4th Circuit, by the way).

And it's a good thing: The 7th Circuit ruled that college newspapers should be treated like high school newspapers concerning oversight of publications. Some part of you and the others in this thread MUST realize that we should NOT be equated with high school students. I mean, what is that shit?! We are adults--whether we act like it or not. For God's sake, I'll be 40 next month!

I'm sure that if the freedom of speech in question were burning the US flag, some of you would be tripping over your keyboards to support that shit. Think about it.

As a public university, North Carolina State is bound by the model of constitutional freedom; private colleges are bound by academic freedom. The differences are tricky; you can learn more on the Web and from several books (I read a good one some years ago, but I can't remember the title. I’ll post it later). In short, public universities are REQUIRED to adhere to the US Constitution, whether one likes it or not. (And I don’t know why the hell one wouldn’t.) In fact, what NC State officials did may very well be actionable--we'll see what comes of the situation in question.

To FrigidPDQ. . .sorry, I mean BridgetSPK: It pisses me off when some people nibble around the edges of racism, sexism, sexual assault, and so on. These issues are too serious to be toyed with, to be casually tossed around like Nerf balls. Either declare here and now that you believe the "Shamrock Streakers" committed sexual assault or drop it. If you REALLY think that they did such a thing, it is your duty to seek out the alleged victim and help her file charges with Campus Police. I'll be checking the police blotter for the charge(s).

One more thing, BridgetSPK: You supposedly found the photo in question SO objectionable, but did you write a letter to the editor of the _Technician_ concerning said photo? It’s not too late, you know. I’ll be looking for your letter in the newspaper, too.

To keenball: I agree with you. One thing, though, the flier was a recruitment tool for ALL outlets of Student Media, not just the _Technician_.

To anybody who doesn't like my underscores: If you think that my usage is incorrect, you are simply wrong. Underscores have been allowed in the manner that I use them on TWW for over a decade. And that position is supported by MLA (most of you attended college; I assume that you have heard of the Modern Language Association). I started using them for the following reasons: (1) Italics did not always show as clearly as I would like; and (2) some years ago, I had problems with the rich text formatting of my Hotmail account. When I would use the italics and other functions, some people would receive a page of what looked like HTML instead of my e-mail message. (Their computers obviously didn’t support RTF.) So, I adopted my current method, which has served me well.

Concerning my syntax and my approach to life, the following quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson is most instructive: "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." _Indeed_.

7/13/2006 2:24:06 AM

man dems alotta words.




[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

7/13/2006 11:46:29 AM

Quote :

"the subject of editorial freedom of college newspapers"

The flier wasn't in the newspaper. It was in a packet to be distributed by the university at an official university function.

7/13/2006 12:36:41 PM

^
an offer they also extended to all other student groups, provided flyers met the guidelines that were provided -- guidelines which in this case were met, since the only guideline was submitting it 2 weeks before the packets went out

in any event, gg to the Provost for drawing more attention to the issue than there would have been otherwise...

Quote :

"TGD: the flyers were taken out of a nondescript folder stuff with 60+ pages of other student organizations' shit. had the Administration done nothing with it, 90% of them probably would have been tossed without ever being read..."

 

7/13/2006 1:30:01 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: To FrigidPDQ. . .sorry, I mean BridgetSPK: It pisses me off when some people nibble around the edges of racism, sexism, sexual assault, and so on. These issues are too serious to be toyed with, to be casually tossed around like Nerf balls. Either declare here and now that you believe the "Shamrock Streakers" committed sexual assault or drop it. If you REALLY think that they did such a thing, it is your duty to seek out the alleged victim and help her file charges with Campus Police. I'll be checking the police blotter for the charge(s)."

1. No shit, they're serious issues, and you shouldn't accuse me of "nibbling" around them, and I'm not toying with anything when I say that it looks like a sexual assault. Knowing that the photo was staged and whatnot, I would say for sure that it is not a sexual assault, but that doesn't change what it looks like, does it?

2. It's not my "duty" to do shit.

Quote :

"hooksaw: One more thing, BridgetSPK: You supposedly found the photo in question SO objectionable, but did you write a letter to the editor of the _Technician_ concerning said photo? It’s not too late, you know. I’ll be looking for your letter in the newspaper, too."

I already said that I could care less what they print. Why would I waste my time writing them a letter?

The only reason why I initially posted in this thread was to object to your "it's funny, not offensive" argument. You didn't write anything about freedom of speech in your first post. You just stuck with the idea that it should have been included because it's funny, not offensive.

And I'm right about what I said, but you're still not getting it. One more time for you:

Some shit offends people. Some shit doesn't. Patently offensive shit gets printed every day. Sometimes people think things are offensive and funny at the same time! Anyway, my point is that you're not gonna win anything by pushing the idea that it's funny...because there will always be some people who disagree. See? You lose under that argument.

You should stick with, "We do what we want. We don't care if some people are offended. Freedom of speech, bitch." Just keep pushing it and fighting for it.

So to sum up...DON'T BE A FUCKING PUSSY.

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : Added ]

7/13/2006 2:50:49 PM

^^ I don't know what the university guidelines were. Regardless, the university pulling the flier =/= first amendment violation.

If hooksaw feels so strongly about his first amendment rights being 'violated', why doesn't he sue the university on behalf of the _Technician_ the Technician the Technician Technician Technician the student newspaper?

[Edited on July 13, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2006 3:41:42 PM

^
he wouldn't have the legal standing. if there was even a chance of that working I would've drafted the Complaint myself already.

7/13/2006 5:41:54 PM

To A Tanzarian: I meant that the content of the flier was determined by the _Technician_ staff, who are members of Student Media. Concerning your comment about litigation, all I can say is that certain groups that support free speech rights on US college campuses have a way of finding out about these things--and getting involved through litigation, mediation, and so on.

To BridgetSPK: Concerning your comment "It's not my "duty" to do shit," I'll paraphrase an enlightening quotation: All that evil needs to prevail in this world is for good men (and women) to do nothing. Sure, don't get involved with anything, and you can continue to come to TWW and complain about it.

PS: My 24-year-old fiancée KNOWS I'm not a pussy, as you put the ad hominem attack. Now step off my grill.

7/13/2006 8:03:54 PM

That's kind of the point: the content of the flier was, in fact, determined by Technician staff, not by the Administration.

I think that you're forgetting the other half of free speech: You may have the right to say what you want (within reason, of course), but nobody is obligated to listen. Technican staff can hand out fliers all day; the University is under no such obligation.

7/13/2006 8:25:18 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: To BridgetSPK: Concerning your comment "It's not my "duty" to do shit," I'll paraphrase an enlightening quotation: All that evil needs to prevail in this world is for good men (and women) to do nothing. Sure, don't get involved with anything, and you can continue to come to TWW and complain about it."

I've heard that quote a billion times, and I feel ya man...but I'd still never take it upon myself to persuade a person to file charges that they otherwise didn't deem necessary. And, by the way, I think it's sweet that you think I'm a "good woman." Holla atcha boo.

Quote :

"hooksaw: PS: My 24-year-old fiancée KNOWS I'm not a pussy, as you put the ad hominem attack. Now step off my grill."

Step off your grill? You called me a prude and kept blabbering at me without acknowledging my argument:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: ^Take a stand for free speech, but don't tell people it's funny. That's subjective, and you know it."

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: They shouldn't say, "They should print it because it's funny, not offensive." They should say, "We know it might offend some folks. We don't care. Free speech, bitch." Don't pussy out and whine about being funny."

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I think it's offensive, and I think it should have been printed."

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Some shit offends people. Some shit doesn't. Patently offensive shit gets printed every day. Sometimes people think things are offensive and funny at the same time! Anyway, my point is that you're not gonna win anything by pushing the idea that it's funny...because there will always be some people who disagree. See? You lose under that argument. You should stick with, "We do what we want. We don't care if some people are offended. Freedom of speech, bitch." Just keep pushing it and fighting for it."

7/13/2006 8:35:11 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: PS: My 24-year-old fiancée KNOWS I'm not a pussy, as you put the ad hominem attack. "

what the hell would she know??? she's obviously too stupid to know any better if she's engaged to some turd who's damn near old enough to be her father.



and you, what you can't hang with women in your relative age group? AND you come here bragging that you've got some 24-year old hoochiegirl as if that somehow PROVES your virility?

look here, old man, any 39-year old dude (and are you really 39? -- or maybe are you 40-something trying to hide it).. any 39-year old dude -- if he looks hard enough -- can find some young impressionable and naive chick who has low enough self esteem that she'll allow herself to be taken in by some wannabe sugardaddy who is afraid to grow up.

jesus christ dude, youre pathetic.




[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

7/14/2006 11:44:49 AM

You're a fucking idiot, joe_schmoe. First, my fiancée is the manager of a large department at a major research university. She has THREE bachelor's degrees, she's beautiful, and she doesn't take shit from anybody. If anything, she's my sugar mamma--I'm just a lowly grad student and TA.

Concerning your "old man" comment, you should be so lucky, infant. I can say with 100 percent certainty that I make it to 39 years of age, can you? (As I posted earlier, I’ll be 40 in August.) In addition, unlike you (99? WTF?!), I posted my actual age in my user info.

You've been watching too many pornos and fantasizing too much--and furiously spanking it, no doubt. (They say it'll make you cross-eyed, boy.) The difference between you and me is that I've been laid this millennium. Step off, mouse potato.

To BridgetSPK: I sense an olive branch in your last post. There is enough fighting in the world: peace. Live long and prosper.

7/14/2006 7:19:21 PM

three bachelor's degrees? what an inefficient use of ones time.

but enough about your gal. I can't be certain on whether or not she has deep-seated issues with trying to replace the absent male parental figure from her childhood or not. But I'll bet it's the case

but about you, all i know is 40 year old men who date 20 year old girls are always the biggest fucking losers. i've known dudes like you. theres something wrong with you that you cant relate to women from your own peer group.

i'm not all that much younger than you. and I've got a wife who is within 1 year of my age. and we're raising a kid. and i hang out with adults my age. i know who you are. you're the boy who refuses to grow up.

("step off, mouse potato", indeed. ive seen your posts in chit chat. you think you're hip with the young kids, huh? guess what, you're not. you're a goon.)




[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 7:52 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2006 7:25:19 PM

She won't talk about it, but my mom is a genius. She also has two master's, one PhD, and one postdoc. Never made below an A in her entire academic career.

And her intelligence doesn't even place in her top five most outstanding qualities.

Just felt like sharing that.

7/14/2006 7:57:16 PM

sound like you got a cool mom.






[Edited on July 14, 2006 at 8:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/14/2006 8:04:34 PM

hey hooksaw

i had a rough day at work today, and i took it out on you.

im sorry. im an asshole. pls disregard everything i said.

best wishes to you and your gal.



[Edited on July 15, 2006 at 1:11 AM. Reason : ]

7/15/2006 1:04:58 AM

Step off, mouse potato.

7/15/2006 10:17:02 AM

Okay, joe_schmoe. Anybody can have a bad day.

But just for the record, I swear on all that's holy the following is true: (1) I didn't aggressively pursue my partner; she pursued me. I was as surprised as anyone that I ended up with someone her age. But she is a much older spirit than most women her age; that's the main reason our relationship works. (2) I'm not trying to be "hip" with anybody--I wouldn't even know how to begin that process. I'm just me, man, and the chips fall where they may. (3) This thread DEFINITELY took a turn away from the subject--and it's partly my fault.

I wish you and yours well, too, joe_schmoe. And I just hope that we can all live in a world where we can get along and the information we should have flows to us uncensored. . .some day.

7/15/2006 2:41:11 PM

word on that.

i dunno whats wrong with me. im always an asshole when im sober.

but i swear, if you meet me when im drunk, im really a nice guy.

7/17/2006 3:43:12 AM