knapplc
Active member
What does having friends in the community have to do with him "cloaking himself in husker red?"
I don't understand the question. Is it the euphemism you're asking about?
What does having friends in the community have to do with him "cloaking himself in husker red?"
In my opinion, the conversation about his past is germane to the hire and thread, even if it relates to a P&R topic. A caveat to this would be if people branch off into LGBT discussions that don't involve Ron Brown and, if that happens, those will be moved.Could we possibly move some of the talks on Coach Browns beliefs to P&R and keep this discussion here strictly to football?
44 minutes ago, knapplc said:
Watch the video.
He can give whatever address he wants. Considering that’s were you’ll find him (as he explained), I think that’s appropriate. Do that mean I’m a bigot, too?People giving statements at those hearings aren't asked to give the place they work. They're asked to give their home address. People before him in that hearing had provided their address, and if we're claiming he was "nervous" or whatever the excuse is, we're ignoring his job of coaching under pressure. He wasn't nervous, he knew exactly what he was doing. This
People ARE allowed their own opinion. They are not allowed to infer that they represent their employer without prior approval, especially when that employer is the flagship university of a state, and especially when that university has explicit policies protecting the LGBTQ community. And we know that he was wrong because he was forced to issue an apology.
Brown wasn't supporting diversity, he was asking the city council to NOT support diversity. How did that get twisted around to being against him? Let's put it this way - if an LGBTQ employee of UNL had gone to a meeting and given UNL as their "home address" and spoken passionately against Ron Brown's right to practice his faith, I'd be saying the same thing about them as I'm saying about Brown now.
I don't see anything that says it was his intent to make any sort of big deal about his association with the University.
No they didn't. Again, you're reading way more into it than what's there.
In the minds of those of who are bothered? Yes.
For the record, I am not nearly as bothered by this as some folks are. We all make our mistakes in this life, and there is not a single one of us that does not have skeletons in our closets. I have mine, you have yours, knapplc has his and Mavric and Saunders have theirs, ad nauseum. I dare say most of us have made far worse mistakes at one point or another in our lives than Ron Brown did in Omaha that night. So maybe we should live by the mantra that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. We make our mistakes, learn from them (hopefully) and move on.![]()
Do you even read (and watch) the stuff you post. The university explicitly stated that he did not speak for the university.
Ah, I see, thanks for the input!In my opinion, the conversation about his past is germane to the hire and thread, even if it relates to a P&R topic. A caveat to this would be if people branch off into LGBT discussions that don't involve Ron Brown and, if that happens, those will be moved.
I'm all ears for the real explanation of those events, then.
No they didn't. Again, you're reading way more into it than what's there.
Edit: In fact, you could make the exact opposite argument from that statement. They didn't think it was all that big of a deal at all. They said they were fine with him speaking and only asked that he clarify that he was speaking his own viewpoint and not associated with the university.
Of course they did. Harvey wrote that letter and specifically named Ron Brown.No they didn't. Again, you're reading way more into it than what's there.
Do you even read (and watch) the stuff you post. The university explicitly stated that he did not speak for the university.
Um, no. They were clarifying because people like you need apparently that clarification. Indeed, as they went on to say others associated with the university made statements in support of the measure, and they to were expressing their opinion.Um...
They didn't think it was all that big of a deal at all. They said they were fine with him speaking and only asked that he clarify that he was speaking his own viewpoint and not associated with the university.
Um, no. They were clarifying because people like you need apparently that clarification. Indeed, as they went on to say others associated with the university made statements in support of the measure, and they to were expressing their opinion.
its real easy to make up “facts” to support your position, but it would save us a lot of time if you just stick to what actually happened .