StoVol
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,885
- Likes
- 71,495
I'm not really a believer in guilt by association guilt by accessory for sure but I don't think that's the case here, he may have been on the staff when some bad stuff went down but that doesn't mean that he is necessarily involved in it, obviously Houston doesn't think so or they just don't careHis name was also involved. That wouldn't go at all here with the issues we had before. He is signing an extension without houston for a reason. People scared to touch him at big schools
If we were to look at new names.. I'd be interested to see if Monken or Cooter would listen. Good chance both will be looking for new employment. Monken for sure as I don't see koetter surviving. Cooter and Patricia don't seem to fit and lions could cut bait with Stafford soon.
The Briarcrest stuff just seems creepy moreso than rapey. Being a creepy teacher isn't a crime though. But if Pruitt got the same vibes or didn't quite believe Freeze's explanations for all this stuff in his interview, then he may have decided he's not Volunteer material. And I'm good with that. We hired him to make those decisions and he should protect our program and students.
when gary danielson says u did something stupid....... i mean...
UH sends wrong message in hiring Kendal BrilesTap the brakes. we talkin about Kendall.
Had to read the article again for about the 4th time to try to find where it states that Freeze watched her take her shirt off. Still couldn't find it.
“He didn’t do anything sexual. But I stood in the corner and faced the wall when I did it and I changed out of my shirt. No privacy.’’
kendal is named in a couple law suits round title Ix issues. just linked an article from the Houston Chronicle in a response to newt.How so? It was Art not Kendall that got into all the trouble at Baylor
Her bra probably covered more than her bikini top would and there wouldn't be any issue if that were the case since she could walk thru walmart in a bikini and no one would say a word. The deal of it happening in his office is the issue and the stigma of it being her "underwear". He should have sent her to a female teacher's office. Poor judgement on his part.
You know this how? What would motivate someone to lie about this?
I have stated that. It does not matter if she had a shirt on under it. It would matter if he stepped out. She said, "no privacy," so if it happened, I assume he did not step out. There would be nothing wrong with him stepping out and allowing her to change clothes privately.It makes a difference if Freeze stepped out of his office while she changed it, no? Or if, as someone else mentioned, she had a shirt on underneath the offending t-shirt, right? We just don’t know the facts.
having the right information isn't hte issue.Each case is different. Neither of us have enough information at this point to know if the allegations are true. Would you rather that people did not assume something inappropriate occurred and did not investigate an accusation?
Reading comprehension is really starting to suck around here. I'll ask you since apparently the last 2 flakes wouldn't answer the question. Where in the article does it say that he watched her change or was in the room when she changed?Are you out of your mind? That is completely irrelevant. If he made her change there while he was in the room (An 8TH GRADE GIRL!!!!!!!) that is ass-whipping worthy and criminal.
It does not matter if she had clothes on underneath it. Staying in the same room while she changes clothes is flat out wrong and abuse of his power.I'm not trying to doubt her but it doesn't say, that I have seen, that she was there only in her bra. If she had an undershirt on isn't this a different conversation. If she had no undershirt, he is 100% wrong and should be prosecuted, if she has an undershirt on, this is a different situation. This would be my first question concerning this.
I have stated that. It does not matter if she had a shirt on under it. It would matter if he stepped out. She said, "no privacy," so if it happened, I assume he did not step out. There would be nothing wrong with him stepping out and allowing her to change clothes privately.
Agreed. We all have our biases. There are many potential reasons why the allegations are only happening years later. One of those potential reasons is that it did not happen. I just want to make sure that we fully vet the situation.It doesn't have to be lies to be a smear campaign. Ask a right leaning person and a left leaning person to describe the same event, say the fires in CA. Now describe something Trump said? And finally, describe something Hillary Clinton did? You'll get completely different accounts of the same 'facts'.
And no, my point wasn't political, my point is bias. None of us have any real knowledge about what happened. We know that a small group of young ladies complained, and we know the school received no complaints. Is he guilty? Impossible to say, but in the current climate we automatically assume the young ladies were victims. And for the record, I had two daughters who went through Christian schools. That's why I know how much drama 'happened'...some of which actually did.
read my last post. i'm not saying anything.It's a crime to say that the college girls like football players at a school?