Jump to content
Thunderheads

Un-flipping believable!

Recommended Posts

BTW, they weren't torn down, nor were they ordered to do so.

Back to this comment ....

the seating area has been dissassembled (torn down) whatever ....

The reason I said that is because "torn down" has an implication of permanence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BTW, they weren't torn down, nor were they ordered to do so.

Back to this comment ....

the seating area has been dissassembled (torn down) whatever ....

 

The reason I said that is because "torn down" has an implication of permanence.

 

understood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm reminded of the term "fair isn't always equal". I believe it applies here.

 

I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas.

 

Revenue is a cycle. You get revenue, you get nicer things, you get more interest, you get more revenue. If we didn't have laws like this, there would be no interest in most female sports because all the revenue would be concentrated in the sports that already have interest.

 

Did you miss the part where the softball parents aren't helping or did you miss it because your vaginitis flared up? 

 

I rest my case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just needs to be shut down at this point...

Why? It is located in a forum titled "Speak Out," with a sub-forum titled "Free For All." Is that how you handle disputes on the ball field? We're all grown here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just needs to be shut down at this point...

Why? It is located in a forum titled "Speak Out," with a sub-forum titled "Free For All." Is that how you handle disputes on the ball field? We're all grown here. We're all grown here.

Try again.

And it seems that whenever this happens on somebody ELSE'S thread, it get locked up before this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This thread just needs to be shut down at this point...

Why? It is located in a forum titled "Speak Out," with a sub-forum titled "Free For All." Is that how you handle disputes on the ball field? We're all grown here. We're all grown here.

Try again.

And it seems that whenever this happens on somebody ELSE'S thread, it get locked up before this point.

 

What? Try what again? We're not all grown here? Explain please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some members still in youth on this site. Also some of the members here have kids who may be reading over the parent's shoulder so we should try to remain civil.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what does that really have to do with the discussion taking place on this sub-forum? The only unseemly remark was originally made by Matt concerning a part of the female anatomy that was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion. The reference to a malady of said anatomical part was just funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what does that really have to do with the discussion taking place on this sub-forum? The only unseemly remark was originally made by Matt concerning a part of the female anatomy that was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion. The reference to a malady of said anatomical part was just funny.

There was nothing unseemly about what I said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody needed/wanted/cared to hear about vajayjays in the original conversation. The vaginitis comment was hilarious, on the other hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody needed/wanted/cared to hear about vajayjays in the original conversation. The vaginitis comment was hilarious, on the other hand.

Obviously you aren't mature enough to handle a serious conversation in which proper terminology is used.

It's also very telling that you defend his implication that women are inferior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only unseemly remark was originally made by Matt concerning a part of the female anatomy that was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion.  

 

I think you mis-interpreted Matt's support of female athletes...I thought it was rather cleaver...reposted here

 

I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm reminded of the term "fair isn't always equal". I believe it applies here.

 

I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas.

 

 

 

This is the only sentence I have a problem with in the whole thread. This is just an asinine and illogical statement. It had absolutely nothing to do with the case at all, and I can't see as to how you arrived at this conclusion that anybody thinks females should have less. The fact remains that a) the softball supporters did not raise funds for their seating, and b) women's/girls' sports are not, and may never be, as popular as men's/boys' sports, and that is just a fact of life. The PGA and LPGA are one example of this. It has nothing to do with what organ is between whose legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only unseemly remark was originally made by Matt concerning a part of the female anatomy that was completely uncalled for and irrelevant to the discussion.  

 

I think you mis-interpreted Matt's support of female athletes...I thought it was rather cleaver...reposted here

 

I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas.

 

No, I didn't miss it. But I did very well in my college logic class, and what he said was a fallacy. I thought UMP45's response was much more clever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of the term "fair isn't always equal". I believe it applies here.

 

I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas.

This is the only sentence I have a problem with in the whole thread. This is just an asinine and illogical statement. It had absolutely nothing to do with the case at all, and I can't see as to how you arrived at this conclusion that anybody thinks females should have less. The fact remains that a) the softball supporters did not raise funds for their seating, and b) women's/girls' sports are not, and may never be, as popular as men's/boys' sports, and that is just a fact of life. The PGA and LPGA are one example of this. It has nothing to do with what organ is between whose legs.

A. No one has provided evidence that the softball supporters didn't attempt to raise the funds.

B. This isn't an issue of spectator popularity. This is about offering the same opportunities in an educational environment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, the following are statements some in here, correctly IMO, find unnecessary, rude, or both.

 

"I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas."

"Maybe you should also learn about the issues in trying to raise revenue for female sports."

Questioning if someone has ever raised money for girls' sports, then after being told they have, saying "Having been on the other side, you know, the actual effort side..."

 

You also had information about a different article containing different information, and instead of stating that, just told people they were incorrect as they quoted the original article.

 

If you care, you come off as condescending numerous times in this thread.  I would edit those posts.

 

Back to the original topic, I simply find it unfortunate that private money raised for any sport HAS to be matched by public funds for the same/similar sport of the opposite sex.  Obviously if public money was made available for one side, it should go for both, but private money raised by parents?  A local HS baseball field has a snack shop, while the softball field doesn't.  The parking lot is also closer to the softball field than the baseball one...I understand that's not the reason the bleachers are being torn down, but it's still a separate issue I find odd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite sure that nobody here feels that both genders don't deserve the same educational opportunities. The story only spoke of the funds raised for the boys varsity baseball team. It did not address whether or not the girls raised any funds on their own for their own facility. It is up to them to raise private funds the same way it was up to the boys team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, do you mean "everybody" instead of "nobody"  up there?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, do you mean "everybody" instead of "nobody"  up there?

 I think so... 

 

 

Nobody needed/wanted/cared to hear about vajayjays in the original conversation. The vaginitis comment was hilarious, on the other hand.

Obviously you aren't mature enough to handle a serious conversation in which proper terminology is used.

It's also very telling that you defend his implication that women are inferior.

 

Who in this thread is implying that women are inferior?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alex.

 

I actually meant to use a double negative there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  The parking lot is also closer to the softball field than the baseball one...

Maybe the baseball team needs a new parking lot...Fair is fair, and all... :no:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, do you mean "everybody" instead of "nobody"  up there?

 I think so... 

 

Nobody needed/wanted/cared to hear about vajayjays in the original conversation. The vaginitis comment was hilarious, on the other hand.

Matt, the following are statements some in here, correctly IMO, find unnecessary, rude, or both.

 

"I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas."

"Maybe you should also learn about the issues in trying to raise revenue for female sports."

Questioning if someone has ever raised money for girls' sports, then after being told they have, saying "Having been on the other side, you know, the actual effort side..."

 

You also had information about a different article containing different information, and instead of stating that, just told people they were incorrect as they quoted the original article.

 

If you care, you come off as condescending numerous times in this thread.  I would edit those posts.

 

Back to the original topic, I simply find it unfortunate that private money raised for any sport HAS to be matched by public funds for the same/similar sport of the opposite sex.  Obviously if public money was made available for one side, it should go for both, but private money raised by parents?  A local HS baseball field has a snack shop, while the softball field doesn't.  The parking lot is also closer to the softball field than the baseball one...I understand that's not the reason the bleachers are being torn down, but it's still a separate issue I find odd.

Obviously you aren't mature enough to handle a serious conversation in which proper terminology is used.

It's also very telling that you defend his implication that women are inferior.

Who in this thread is implying that women are inferior?

It should be very obvious. Trying to demean someone by stating they have woman-like qualities only works if one feels that women are inferior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, the following are statements some in here, correctly IMO, find unnecessary, rude, or both.

 

"I love how people think it's okay for females to have less simply because they have vaginas."

"Maybe you should also learn about the issues in trying to raise revenue for female sports."

Questioning if someone has ever raised money for girls' sports, then after being told they have, saying "Having been on the other side, you know, the actual effort side..."

 

You also had information about a different article containing different information, and instead of stating that, just told people they were incorrect as they quoted the original article.

 

If you care, you come off as condescending numerous times in this thread.  I would edit those posts.

Guess what? The truth hurts. If people have a problem with it because of their prejudices, that's exactly that--their problem. The amount of ignorance in this thread is simply amazing. And I don't care if I come off as elitist or condescending. When one has seen this, studied this, and worked this issue, one should not lower themselves to others simply for comfort. 

 

The best case in point is one that you referred to, the idea that being a purchaser of a raffle ticket constitutes experience in fundraising. It doesn't, just like getting gas for one's car doesn't make one an oil executive. Yet, somehow, that's held up as some sort of effort. So, I will call a spade a spade.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH

 

Still trying to see any "prejudices" here. I am willing to bet that UMP45, like myself, loves and adores women, and doesn't find them inferior in the least.

 

You don't care if you sound condescending? That's awfully condescending of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough!!! This has gone on for long enough. Let's move on to the next topic please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...