Next Year

[TransAmBison]

Re: Next Year

Sigh. Stig didn't force him to play or override the medical staff unless you have proof. Besides isn't any player who said he was ok and volantarily wants to go back in putting him self in harms regardless of what a coach says? I don't recall any of your sources that said berry was advised to not return and stig forced him to come back into the game.

You lost. Just lose gracefully. A player does not get the decision to go back in after suffering a concussion. You are an embarrassment to your school. I can't even laugh at you...it is just sad.

[goon]

Re: Next Year

You lost. Just lose gracefully. A player does not get the decision to go back in after suffering a concussion. You are an embarrassment to your school. I can't even laugh at you...it is just sad.

You obviously are not discussing thew issue since you know your wrong. The medical staff never said he couldn't return. He trusted his medical staff and the player said he was fine. Until you have proof stig went against the advice of the medical staff he did nothing wrong which is very difficult for you to accept. It obviously bothers you but you can't seem to get over it. I know I sleep fine at night and I'm sure stig does too. I worry this is affecting you too much 5 years laters. Sorta pathetic. I am done. Carry on as you wish.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Next Year

I'm with TAB here. Saying that it was okay because Berry said he was okay is beyond stupid. In the post game interview he said he couldn't remember parts of the game. That is terrifying and everyone is lucky nothing serious happened. Concussion effects aren't always realized right away and Berry could end up suffering long term damage because of it. He also could end up being fine. Either way, he shouldn't have gone back in. Whether it was the medical staff that gave the okay, or Stig, or whoever, it shouldn't have happened. I'd say all parties are to blame. It wouldn't happen now, and it shouldn't have happened then. To say otherwise is just silly. To use "medical advancements blah blah blah" is dumb. Medical professionals have known for YEARS about the affects of playing with concussions. They knew in the 90s.

All of that said, it doesn't make anyone a bad person or evil or whatever, which I don't think TAB is saying. It was something dumb that happened five years ago that shouldn't have happened.

[TK22867]

Re: Next Year

You are an embarrassment to your school. I can't even laugh at you...it is just sad.

Get the F out of here with that crap. This is an SDSU fan site. Please leave and don't come back til' you can show our fans a little bit more class.

[witness]

Re: Next Year

Let bygones be bygones

[filbert]

Re: Next Year

Yes. I agree. The guys that have argued with me have been proven wrong. Only way to save face is to say you are bored. Yes, good strategy. Let's see how it works out for them, Cotton.

Nice spin, but . . . no.

Simple fact is that nobody discussing the Berry situation has all of the relevant facts at hand one way or the other---the most we have are allusions and unsubstantiated rumor.

If it happened today, there's no doubt he would have been done for the day and wouldn't have come back in.

What we still don't know is what the SDSU medical staff's recommendation was at the time to Stig. Without that information-- clear and unambiguous information, not second- and third-hand "I heard that . . ." kind of innuendo-information, it is not possible to make the kind of conclusion TAB wants to make regarding Stig without donning glasses of a partisan color one way or the other. Did they come to Stig and say "yeah, the kid can go if you need him?" Do you know that they didn't do that? If so, the manner of your knowing that they did not do that becomes of interest, because that indicates a quite amazingly high level of knowledge of the discussions on the sidelines and in the locker room during that game.

Maybe NDSU had SDSU's sideline and locker room bugged? Maybe that's how you know that. (Yes, this is (probably) a ridiculous accusation. But you see how it works?)

The accuser generally has to prove his accusation; it is not incumbent upon the accused (or the accused's defenders) to provide positive disproof of an accusation.

The accusation is in this case still of the status of Not Proven. This is rather different than the status of Correct.

Also, vociferous repetition of accusations, accompanied with "I'm right, dammit!" does not in and of itself constitute additional evidence supporting the accusations.

It does become somewhat tedious to keep having to point this out, however.

If you want to believe that Stig is deep-down an evil, heartless user and destroyer of young men (or whatever), go right ahead, nobody's going to stop you. But if you want to convince others, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than what you've given us so far.

I do not know whether or not Stig put Berry in against the recommendations of his medical staff. If he did, I would indeed consider that to be a black mark against him. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. So unless you can offer good information that gets over that bar, I suggest at this point you simply move on.

(And note to other posters--That suggestion goes for you, too. Unless you have something more to offer than your own feelings, hurt or otherwise, on the topic, I would suggest that you refrain from further pointless bickering. If you've got something that says "yeah, the medical staff cleared him to go back in" in pretty much so many words, post the link. Otherwise, let's move on, shall we?)

[Nidaros]

Re: Next Year

Thanks definitely time to move on.

[TransAmBison]

Re: Next Year

Nice spin, but . . . no.

Simple fact is that nobody discussing the Berry situation has all of the relevant facts at hand one way or the other---the most we have are allusions and unsubstantiated rumor.

If it happened today, there's no doubt he would have been done for the day and wouldn't have come back in.

What we still don't know is what the SDSU medical staff's recommendation was at the time to Stig. Without that information-- clear and unambiguous information, not second- and third-hand "I heard that . . ." kind of innuendo-information, it is not possible to make the kind of conclusion TAB wants to make regarding Stig without donning glasses of a partisan color one way or the other. Did they come to Stig and say "yeah, the kid can go if you need him?" Do you know that they didn't do that? If so, the manner of your knowing that they did not do that becomes of interest, because that indicates a quite amazingly high level of knowledge of the discussions on the sidelines and in the locker room during that game.

Maybe NDSU had SDSU's sideline and locker room bugged? Maybe that's how you know that. (Yes, this is (probably) a ridiculous accusation. But you see how it works?)

The accuser generally has to prove his accusation; it is not incumbent upon the accused (or the accused's defenders) to provide positive disproof of an accusation.

The accusation is in this case still of the status of Not Proven. This is rather different than the status of Correct.

Also, vociferous repetition of accusations, accompanied with "I'm right, dammit!" does not in and of itself constitute additional evidence supporting the accusations.

It does become somewhat tedious to keep having to point this out, however.

If you want to believe that Stig is deep-down an evil, heartless user and destroyer of young men (or whatever), go right ahead, nobody's going to stop you. But if you want to convince others, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than what you've given us so far.

I do not know whether or not Stig put Berry in against the recommendations of his medical staff. If he did, I would indeed consider that to be a black mark against him. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. So unless you can offer good information that gets over that bar, I suggest at this point you simply move on.

(And note to other posters--That suggestion goes for you, too. Unless you have something more to offer than your own feelings, hurt or otherwise, on the topic, I would suggest that you refrain from further pointless bickering. If you've got something that says "yeah, the medical staff cleared him to go back in" in pretty much so many words, post the link. Otherwise, let's move on, shall we?)

You are not as bad as goon (head in sand completely) but you are just happy the facts are hidden. I don't need to prove more than I have. He had a freaking concussion. There is no way he should have returned. Maybe there were incompetent med staff. Doesn't matter. Stig has been around the game long enough to know better. I have not been giving opinions...dude...this is common knowledge.

And no, I have never said Stig was evil. Some of you guys are blowing things up to make it out that I am saying something I am not. If you go back to the beginning of all this, I was just showing that Stig is not perfect...to counter all you guys who like to badmouth Bohl.

[TransAmBison]

Re: Next Year

Get the F out of here with that crap. This is an SDSU fan site. Please leave and don't come back til' you can show our fans a little bit more class.

Big man. Really. Wow...glad you could add an educated view. And I have treated goon better than he deserves. I would call him a troll, but trolls are usually more educated on the subjects than he is.

[JackJD]

Re: Next Year

I have been off line for a day and returned this evening and started catching up on the message board. I've closed this thread but it's going to be a temporary closing while I consult the board's guidelines and prepare a post.

[filbert]

Re: Next Year

I think this is called "Arguing with a brick wall."

I say:

I do not know whether or not Stig put Berry in against the recommendations of his medical staff. If he did, I would indeed consider that to be a black mark against him. But I do not know for sure if this is the case. So unless you can offer good information that gets over that bar, I suggest at this point you simply move on.

Somehow, this input is processed in the neurons of one TransAmBison and the output result somehow inexplicably includes:

you are just happy the facts are hidden

Now, I'm quite aware that you are citing as a source someone who I guess played on SDSU's team at the time. I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. I have no way of knowing whether or not, if that is true, he is correctly remembering what he actually personally witnessed. I have no way of knowing whether or not he is correctly relating things that he did not witness but others on the sideline did.

I don't know these things.

Nobody but you made this an issue in this thread, at this time. Not me. Not Goon. Not anybody else. You.

I think I have made my position quite clear. I think you've made your position clear.

What you do NOT get to do unchallenged is misrepresent what I say as saying something exactly the opposite of what it means.

This puts YOUR veracity in question, in my mind, and by extension, the veracity of any private source you may claim to have.

I point this out in an honest effort to allow you to understand how you've tended to undermine your own argument here--even if in fact you and your unnamed (publicly at least) source are totally, completely, 100% correct in every jot and tittle of the matter.

As it happens, at the time that game happened, in 2008, I actually was traveling out of the country, so it's entirely possible that there was information that came out at the time that I am not aware of.

But. HELLO. I AM NOT AWARE OF IT.

THAT'S WHY I ASKED!

Do I have to whack you upside the head with a 2x4 to get you to understand that?

Sometimes, you know, when people ask for things, it's because they want to know--not because they're being difficult.

I don't know you personally--I don't know your friend/co-worker/whatever, who you say has the inside story. That is why I would like to have another, independent source that says the same thing. (I'm not a reporter, but I understand that the two-source thing used to be Reporting 101). And the only reason why I'm asking in the first place is because you made an issue of it. Otherwise, I wouldn't particularly care, much as I really don't particularly care that some of the NDSU players in the past have had a problem or two. Hey, it's college athletics. It happens. Fodder for smack sections maybe, but not terribly meaningful, really.

Now, my general impression of you from your posts here (and my extremely infrequent visits to Bisonville) is that you seem to be a really good guy, and I'm personally not at all inclined to shut this thread down, but it really doesn't seem to me that there is much point to continue to go back and forth on this unless there is more public information that can come out one way or another. I would like to see it, especially if there were reports at the time that the SDSU medical staff were in fact overruled by the coaching staff.

And to everybody else, regarding this particular topic:

Drop it, unless you have INFORMATION in the form of linked media reports one way or another to post. Otherwise, just drop it.

Consider that a warning, if and when we decide to open this thread back up.

[JackJD]

Re: Next Year

[NOTE: I prepared this post before reading filbert wrote his well-reasoned post. I’m going to post the following anyway and will consult with the other moderators about leaving the thread closed. ]

I have not checked on the board for a day or so and was disappointed to see this train-wreck of a thread continue to run off the tracks. This thread is being kept alive by the advocate from the north who claims superior knowledge over medicals experts and continues to insist on a set of factual claims about an event that occurred years ago. It is important to note that some SDSU fans (ME) do not give a rat’s rear end about a decision made years ago because it was made by those in charge based on knowledge they had at the time. No one suggests the medical experts or the coaches were dealing in bad faith or outside of their standard of care at the time.

This board has the benefit of guidelines published by filbert. The first 17 guidelines were published May 6, 2009. An 18th guideline, “don’t be a bonehead” was added in 2013. The attribution rule, amounting to the 19th guideline, was also added in 2013.

Below I have printed several guidelines followed by my comments or observations based on this thread.

From filbert’s first 17 guidelines from 5/6/09, with mycomments in italics.

1. The people who run this board are fans/alumni/backers of South Dakota StateUniversity, especially the athletic programs of SDSU. The majority of posters here are also fans/alumni/backers/students of SDSU. This seems to come as a shock to some people. I'm not sure why.
No further comment necessary.

2. Don't Piss Off The Bartender. See #1. Take this knowledge to heart. Forthose who have trouble following the analogy: Bartender = Moderator.
Telling filbert he’s not as bad as goon…somehowthat seems like damning by faint praise (with apologies to goon…goon, just gowith me on this one). Don’t know yet how that sat with filbert but I’m pissed off. I’m a bartender.

3. This Board Is Not About You. See #1. See #2. A really good way to piss off the bartenders is to act like you own the bar. Because you don't.
While the advocate from the north didn’t actlike he owned the bar, he has definitely acted like he wants to take control ofthe bar’s employee handbook. I think that’s an attempted violation of guideline #3.

4. Do not smack in non-smack threads. I am continually amazed how many people don't seem to understand this simple concept.
The diatribe against Stig has devolved into smack, plain and simple.

5. Respect is not given, it is earned. This applies to posters every bit as much as it applies to athletic programs. Posters from other schools are generally given as much respect here as they give to SDSU and Jackrabbit fan-posters here.
No further comment necessary.

13. Continually posting nonsensical, argumentative, or off-topic posts can makethe bartenders unhappy--especially if we get complaints from the regular customers. On the other hand, some threads are born to go wildly off-topic.These threads are tolerated to the extent that they amuse the bartenders andthe regular customers….
This bartender is not amused.

14. The bartenders don't watch every table (thread; post) every second of theday. Some of the bartenders actually have lives.
In my post (#144 of the thread) I subtly tried to plead for mercy and understanding when I wrote “You people are not treating the moderators very nicely because you know we have to scan this b.s.” No mercy or understanding was given. Unhappy bartender. L

17. When in doubt, See #2.

______________________________

TAB tripped over eight of the original 17 guidelines.

While not printed in the guidelines thread of the “Announcements”section of this board, one of the original rules of behavior for the board was and is: attack the post, not the poster. That rule has been used to justify warnings and bans on posters. In this thread, the advocate from the north kicked goon and then TK down the steps. (I’ve taken swipes at goon and TK but they’re MY fellow SDSU fans and I’m a bartender so I give myself a pass. ).

Decision: There are many good reasons to permanently close this thread. There are more reasons to sanction TAB. TAB has built up some good will on this board and, at least until now, has been a welcome visitor. I think he’s done yeoman’s work in squandering his good will. I’m tempted to kick his buffalo butt outa here but I’m not going to.

I’m going to consult with the other moderators on whether they think this miserable thread should be reopened.

[JackJD]

Re: Next Year

My wife is laughing because when a thread is closed, only the moderators can chat in it.

We're such nerds.

[filbert]

Re: Next Year

My wife is laughing because when a thread is closed, only the moderators can chat in it.

We're such nerds.

I've been prevailed upon to leave this thread closed.

But, sometimes, I do get the last word. Right, JackJD?

(aw, hell . . .)