Quote:
Originally Posted by kdf5
Are you serious or are you seriously prejudiced?
Again, are you serious? A high school coach, a person who is supposed to be a leader of youth, writes about football players and homosexual relationships with priests and you think he should be allowed to continue coaching?
|
Where is this nonsense headed? Someone came up with what he thought was a new and innovative idea, that skirted the edge of a rule's inadequate language, and circumvented the basic intent of a rule exception. He tried hard, real hard. maybe even way too hard to persuade people this was a great idea. His effort failed.
He was unsuccessful, because too many people just didn't buy into his interpretation, or concept, to the exception, as being reasonable. After a couple of years of intense discussion and very public argument, beating both the pros and cons to death, a rule modification
closing the original loophole appears imminent.
Turns out the "concept" was not just under the line, but crossed over it, and the line is being redrawn to verify and prevent it. The argument has apparently been settled, the way rule differences are supposed to be settled;
the rule makers considered the issue, contemplated it and after deliberation rendered a judgment.
To those of you screaming "cheating", look up the definition, there was no deceipt, no subterfuge, the argument was open the objectives clearly stated and all the efforts at persuasion simply failed to prevent the ultimate judgment. There was no cheating, the argument in favor of this idea was
simply wrong. A lot of ideas turn out to be wrong, which doesn't mean they were evil or sinister or motivated by evil intent. They were just bad ideas that, thankfully, didn'y fly. Unfortunately a lot of bad ideas often do fly.
Expanding this argument to suggest this man should be banned from coaching, unless you have some
real solid, specific, hard evidence to support such an idea is way, way out beyond the reach of your headlights and is leading down a dark, dark road.
The issue appears to have been settled, the rule makers have (or until the actual rule language comes out, seem to have) spoken. It's over, there's nothing to be gained by rallying the villagers to break out the torches and storm Dr. Frankenstein's castle.