Gotta love Wikipedia!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by derwil

What brought this on Nevada? Maybe I'm missing something that happened as I've been living "under a rock" this week.

He was working the NV @ Boise St WAC confernce game last night. A buddy of mine was watching it with me. The BYU incident came up in our conversation and he said, "No way. It can't be the same guy. There is no way that he would still be calling D1." So we turned on a computer and he did a search. The wikipedia entry was the first result, much to my amusement of course.

Originally Posted by derwil

The event happened in 2004. If conference assignors are still giving him games then poo poo on them.

That's the way that I feel. Frankly I'm surprised by it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I wanted to add something.

Nevada, is what Dixon did some sort of unpardonable sin from which no official is capable of learning? Is this one issue bad enough that a) it should be a career ender; and b) it deserves calling his entire career into question?

It's not like he's Donaghy, FCOL.

I guess that is up to each person's individual opinion. Obviously, some conference assignors don't believe that it is. I just have a much stronger opinion when it comes to integrity issues with officials. If you were a coach or a partner would you be able to trust him when he tells you something?

It's true that he didn't commit a federal crime, but he certainly didn't make an honest mistake either.

Don't know if you recall, but he had the chance even after the game to admit to his whistle in the investigation by the MWC and yet he maintained that he didn't blow it. It wasn't until a local TV station produced film from a courtside camera WITH THE AUDIO which had captured him blowing his whistle that the lying stopped.

[JRutledge]

Let me get this straight. We have an individual that rips an official by name publicly, but any comment about how ridiculous the content of this thread is out of bounds?

I thought I read a moderator say that it was out of bounds to rip officials on this site, but it is allowed to have an individual rip an official in this instance and no one can say anything about it? Now I normally back the moderators here big time, but forgive me if I am a little puzzled by what is acceptable and what is not. This thread serves no purpose but to publicly rip an official based on information that none of us know about other than second hand knowledge. This situation was between the supervisor and the official. And if the supervisor had a problem with what took place, they would not be working games right now. And it is OK to rip that official here because someone has a stick up their behind about it?

Peace

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me get this straight. We have an individual that rips an official by name publicly, but any comment about how ridiculous the content of this thread is out of bounds?

I thought I read a moderator say that it was out of bounds to rip officials on this site, but it is allowed to have an individual rip an official in this instance and no one can say anything about it? Now I normally back the moderators here big time, but forgive me if I am a little puzzled by what is acceptable and what is not. This thread serves no purpose but to publicly rip an official based on information that none of us know about other than second hand knowledge. This situation was between the supervisor and the official. And if the supervisor had a problem with what took place, they would not be working games right now. And it is OK to rip that official here because someone has a stick up their behind about it?

Peace

Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, does it??

[Nevadaref]

[JugglingReferee]

Nevada,

Please remove this thread.

Respectfully,

JugglingReferee

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Speaking as a retired teacher, who is now working as a chemist, and who is quite familiar with research reliability, some of what you state is correct, but Wikipedia is a good place to start research, but, like any research, followup research, as in other, additional sources, is always required.

And, Wikipedia might not be as unreliable as you may think: Reliability of Wikipedia: Information from Answers.com

Be careful where you tread. I know many colleges have blocked Wikipedia, because they don't accept it's reliability level. The college where I teach at, we have to actually go onto Wikipedia when a student cites it, and decide for ourselves the reliability of the actual citation. More often than not, in my field (Sign Language Interpreting), the Wikipedia information is either skewed or incomplete, so the students end up hurting themselves using Wikipedia. That's why I admonished the OP for citing Wikipedia, because the tone of the Wikipedia entry was obviously so anti-Dixon that it had to have come straight from a hating fan, therefore worthless to be cited on this website.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me get this straight. We have an individual that rips an official by name publicly, but any comment about how ridiculous the content of this thread is out of bounds?

Your history with certain posters (NevadaRef for one) means that anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack on those posters will be interpreted that way and deleted (and, to be clear, it also works in reverese and the same types of posts from, for example, NevadaRef have been deleted).

I do not have the post you made in this thread, but it wasn't along the lines of "the content of this thread is ridiculous."

When a post gets deleted, other posts that quote the deleted post also get deleted. Sometimes that means an otherwise-valid post is deleted.

And, while I find the original post (and some of the follow-up posts) in this thread to be in poor taste, and my opinion of the OP has gone down because of them, I am not sure that the post violates the forum standards (nor, to be clear, am I sure that it meets the standards). So, for now, I've chosen to let it remain. Other moderators may take a different approach.

[Brad]

I think that we've just about exhausted this topic.

Nevada -- starting this thread really served no good purpose.