Jump to content
dmm53

Flo's silence on the Ohio State accusations & Jim Jordan story

Recommended Posts

It was in another interview. So, that's your plan for engaging in this discussion? Challenge specific individual posters to show you exactly where something as stated and then once they do you move on to the next point you want verified? Without any evident change in your position? Why should people waste their time with a conversation with you? Really - do you think they live to provide specific citations for statements merely for to say "Okay, but what about that over there?"

 

For the record, I am the one who stated that Jordan said he "didn't here anything about anything." But it wasn't said tin the video clip in question - it was a different clip and I am not inclined to wade through the many online snippets of Jordan speaking to this issue and locate the moment he says it; report it to you; and then ave you turn around and say, "Well, what about..." It is a waste of other people's time to engage you on this issue.

 

I know you said it npope,  I didnt ask you for it,    It would be nice, but I wouldnt expect you to validate where you heard or read it from. Using actual facts,rather than feelings probably does not fit into your biased agenda .  I was just trying to see if there was credible information out there that I may have misinterpreted.  

 

If you or others do not wish to debate using the facts, fine ..   take the "Acosta" approach and  walk away just because you are not in agreement.  

 

The side track of Jordan's involvement is 100 percent political.  I am a conservative that also does not agree with everything he does.  I will, however continue to challenge those who do not use facts, but use misinformation and lies disguised as facts, to tear him down.  Opinions are encouraged but are not facts.   

Edited by tbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you said it npope,  I didnt ask you for it,    It would be nice, but I wouldnt expect you to validate where you heard or read it from. Using actual facts,rather than feelings probably does not fit into your biased agenda .  I was just trying to see if there was credible information out there that I may have misinterpreted.  

 

If you or others do not wish to debate using the facts, fine ..   take the "Acosta" approach and  walk away just because you are not in agreement.  

 

The side track of Jordan's involvement is 100 percent political.  I am a conservative that also does not agree with everything he does.  I will, however continue to challenge those who do not use facts, but use misinformation and lies disguised as facts, to tear him down.  Opinions are encouraged but are not facts.   

 

So exactly which political party is after Urban Meyer? I'm just assuming that there must be some political angle on it because it certainly can't be just because he might be lying or fudging on the truth - right? No reason to take issue with anybody about anything except for political purposes - right? (that's me being facetious, if anyone is confused).

 

Where is that dam "head slap" emoji when I need it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do appreciate you looking this up, this is where I thought you were talking about.

 

 

prior answer:

Jordan: Conversations in the locker room are a lot different than some one coming up and saying there was some kind of abuse"

 

next question:

Baier “Did you hear it in the locker room?”

 

Jordan: “No, no abuse"

he didnt "try" to follow up with it, he actually did say this one sentence.... since the prior answer was about abuse one can assume "it" meant abuse. but you would have to ask Baier what he meant by "it".

 

 

Where does Jordan deny he heard "any" locker room talk. Just did not happen.

Others on here said Jordan denies hearing anything about anything .....Where does he say that?

 

 

I absolutely am not trolling on this. I have only defended what Jordan has said.in his own words, not what others have said or such as you, only pulling out certain words that fit in their narative. Others have chose to misquote, misrepresent outright lie on what Jordan has said . I understand the pressure Liberals feel about hJordan getting speakership, but to act just like the person they so much despise is extreme hypocrisy.

So if Jordan says that “locker room talk is different than talk of abuse,” and then he gets asked about the aforementioned locker room talk, then IMO the clear implication of that question is referring to if he heard any of the jokes, etc being made about Strauss, even if it wasn’t accusations of abuse.

 

Maybe he didn’t word for word say “I never heard anything about anything” that I saw, but he has denied every question he’s been asked and some of his answers are clearly implying that’s his position. And again, the many wrestlers speaking up saying he had to have known about some of Strauss’s actions all appear to be under the impression that that’s his position as well.

 

Also, how do you explain his statement denying knowledge of anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now? That he’s simply dumb and doesn’t know what would be considered abuse today?

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So exactly which political party is after Urban Meyer? I'm just assuming that there must be some political angle on it because it certainly can't be just because he might be lying or fudging on the truth - right? No reason to take issue with anybody about anything except for political purposes - right? (that's me being facetious, if anyone is confused).

 

Where is that dam "head slap" emoji when I need it?

Clearly the work of the Illuminati, Deep State, Antifa, and QAnon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Jordan says that “locker room talk is different than talk of abuse,” and then he gets asked about the aforementioned locker room talk, then IMO the clear implication of that question is referring to if he heard any of the jokes, etc being made about Strauss, even if it wasn’t accusations of abuse.

 

Maybe he didn’t word for word say “I never heard anything about anything” that I saw, but he has denied every question he’s been asked and some of his answers are clearly implying that’s his position. And again, the many wrestlers speaking up saying he had to have known about some of Strauss’s actions all appear to be under the impression that that’s his position as well.

 

Also, how do you explain his statement denying knowledge of anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now? That he’s simply dumb and doesn’t know what would be considered abuse today?

 

I'll stand by my original statement that he said "I never heard anything about anything" even though I am not inclined to rummage through the pile of online video clips to locate it at this time. As soon as I might locate it and specifically cite it, another poster who already has determined Jordan to be the victim of a witch hunt will add an interpretive spin to it suggesting it doesn't mean what he said, e.g. "He was obviously saying that he never heard anything about abuse." And the game goes on  - it is a zero sum game to provide facts and evidence when people have proven themselves so ready to simply dismiss them - and when they can't, they simply melt away into the shadows. There is no battle that can be won here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stand by my original statement that he said "I never heard anything about anything" even though I am not inclined to rummage through the pile of online video clips to locate it at this time. As soon as I might locate it and specifically cite it, another poster who already has determined Jordan to be the victim of a witch hunt will add an interpretive spin to it suggesting it doesn't mean what he said, e.g. "He was obviously saying that he never heard anything about abuse." And the game goes on - it is a zero sum game to provide facts and evidence when people have proven themselves so ready to simply dismiss them - and when they can't, they simply melt away into the shadows. There is no battle that can be won here.

You can stand by any statement. Everybody can. Doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

Six other coches say they never heard about abuse either.

 

It’s being reported that Mark Coleman has recanted his original accusation (John Ziegler tweeted out).

 

I would never believe anybody there didn’t hear anything about anything. I do believe people had no idea about any actual abuse. Former tOSU wrestler and former Marine Pardos says just that.

 

I have no doubt Strauss did much if not all he is being accused of. To many in too many sports are talking. But also read a gymnast saying his team joked in euphemisms which he said would lead him to believe his coaches didn’t know about any abuse. Given that time period, that seems believable. In today’s culture, anybody in any leadership position is or should be super alert to any such comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Jordan says that “locker room talk is different than talk of abuse,” and then he gets asked about the aforementioned locker room talk, then IMO the clear implication of that question is referring to if he heard any of the jokes, etc being made about Strauss, even if it wasn’t accusations of abuse.

 

Maybe he didn’t word for word say “I never heard anything about anything” that I saw, but he has denied every question he’s been asked and some of his answers are clearly implying that’s his position. And again, the many wrestlers speaking up saying he had to have known about some of Strauss’s actions all appear to be under the impression that that’s his position as well.

 

Also, how do you explain his statement denying knowledge of anything that wouldn’t have been abuse then but would be now? That he’s simply dumb and doesn’t know what would be considered abuse today?

Fair enough, I see your position with "it". I believe we are both interpreting the way we want to hear it

As far as your second point , I do struggle a little bit with that answer. To answer, there could be several scenarios but they would just be opinions. Maybe he actually did not hear anything that could be considered abuse now, or maybe he actually did not like Ohio state asst position and he wanted all the wrestlers abused so they would under perform and he could talk himself into being head coach (sarcasm).

But yes that answer should of been followed up with another deeper diving question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stand by my original statement that he said "I never heard anything about anything" even though I am not inclined to rummage through the pile of online video clips to locate it at this time. As soon as I might locate it and specifically cite it, another poster who already has determined Jordan to be the victim of a witch hunt will add an interpretive spin to it suggesting it doesn't mean what he said, e.g. "He was obviously saying that he never heard anything about abuse." And the game goes on - it is a zero sum game to provide facts and evidence when people have proven themselves so ready to simply dismiss them - and when they can't, they simply melt away into the shadows. There is no battle that can be won here.

sounds reasonable Edited by tbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So exactly which political party is after Urban Meyer? I'm just assuming that there must be some political angle on it because it certainly can't be just because he might be lying or fudging on the truth - right? No reason to take issue with anybody about anything except for political purposes - right? (that's me being facetious, if anyone is confused).

 

Where is that dam "head slap" emoji when I need it?

I honestly know little or nothing about the Urban Meyer wife beating scandal. I do know he is not running for speaker of the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I see your position with "it". I believe we are both interpreting the way we want to hear it

As far as your second point , I do struggle a little bit with that answer. To answer, there could be several scenarios but they would just be opinions. Maybe he actually did not hear anything that could be considered abuse now, or maybe he actually did not like Ohio state asst position and he wanted all the wrestlers abused so they would under perform and he could talk himself into being head coach (sarcasm).

But yes that answer should of been followed up with another deeper diving question.

I think the most common comment that’s been said regarding how they discussed Strauss is basically “no matter what ailment you went to see him for, you’d have to drop your pants.” I think most would agree that’d be considered abuse now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I perceive that as generalized locker room talk,as i can see my teammates and I saying crap like that tongue in cheek, but with specific injury and diagnosis examples, Yes.

As a matter of fact I'm skeptical on Jordan's answer to a question like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is common for victims to downplay abuse. You don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t shame victims.

Housebuye - I usually don’t get involved in political discussions on these boards but in this case I have to speak up and say I 100% agree with you. Anyone who thinks that a victim of sexual abuse would relish coming forward and think of it as an easy payday is out of their mind. Dredging up painful and shameful (yes! Victims feel tremendous shame) to earn a few easy bucks is usually not what’s going on. Not even close. But the accused find ready allies when they set up the accusers as such. It’s terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly know little or nothing about the Urban Meyer wife beating scandal. I do know he is not running for speaker of the house.

 

Neither was Jordan when he stepped into this crap-storm; people were all over him like stink on poop well before he announced his run for speaker. That said, Jordan is a high profile guy with a lot of enemies - so is Meyer. But all that aside, they are getting called on the carpet for their (questionable) responses as to their knowledge of the alleged poor behavior of others. That's the deal - that's the parallel. Meyer may very well go down for the same type of botched response; but his team has seemingly thought better of doubling-down on the Sargent Schultz routine.

 

Edited by npope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither was Jordan when he stepped into this crap-storm; people were all over him like stink on poop well before he announced his run for speaker. That said, Jordan is a high profile guy with a lot of enemies - so is Meyer. But all that aside, they are getting called on the carpet for their (questionable) responses as to their knowledge of the alleged poor behavior of others. That's the deal - that's the parallel. Meyer may very well go down for the same type of botched response; but his team has seemingly thought better of doubling-down on the Sargent Schultz routine.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzsWxPLIOo

My apologies, he clearly said I know nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is in the job description of a coach to destroy a weirdo like this doctor.

 

I think a legit coach TODAY would likely force the doc out if he found the doc was abusing his kids. But that was a different era. Plus, although I despise Jordan, he was just an assistant.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the job of journalists to "win". Their job is to inform and report the truth. Even if the story is still playing out, there are ways to clearly convey what is known and what the open questions are.

What I mean by win is even if we dig and find truth, people of opposing political affiliations will attack the story based on their perception of how the story slants. i’m not wasting my time on it as a writer. I’ll curate some reasonably qualified sources, but even if I would have the 100% facts, my own credibility would be assaulted regardless in this situation.

 

That’s what I mean by “no win” in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by win is even if we dig and find truth, people of opposing political affiliations will attack the story based on their perception of how the story slants. i’m not wasting my time on it as a writer. I’ll curate some reasonably qualified sources, but even if I would have the 100% facts, my own credibility would be assaulted regardless in this situation.

 

That’s what I mean by “no win” in this case.

 

That's not it at all. The rightwing conflates not reporting "happy happy good stuff" about Trump with "fake news". The problem is Trump actually IS saying and doing the stupid **** the media is attributing to him. Trump, apparently, has no idea that we've had video technology for decades now and that there are RECORDINGS of the stupid stuff he's said/done. Telling, I think, that his administration doesn't find anything wrong with "alternative facts" (aka: lies).

 

The only "fake news" I've seen has all been rightwing in nature, and the biggest purveyor of fake news in the country is the liar in the White House. I couldn't care less about "slant", all I care is that the actual truth is purveyed, and I think draconian penalties should be exacted against fake news sites like Infowars, Breitbart, etc.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen religious and political debates destroy lifelong friendships. Doesn't mean I don't consume that information, but if you start talking politics with me (for example), I won't pay attention because it's not something I enjoy discussing.

 

I have my positions, but they are mine. One year, I was explaining to members of one political party about why I was considering various candidates. I was immediately attacked for even considering anyone other than their candidate. These at the time, were two of my friends (I only say were because we lost touch after college).

 

I prefer to talk about things I enjoy, plain and simple. So wherever you stand politically, I don't really care. I'd rather discuss your positions on wrestling, music, fishing, disc golf, travel, sports -- things I enjoy talking about. That's what I mean when I say "I don't care about anyone's political theories."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 I'd rather discuss your positions on wrestling, music, fishing, disc golf, travel, sports -- things I enjoy talking about.

 

 

1. FS wrestling is only half a sport

2. Everything except Rap is good, but the best music is, surprise, the same as the best wrestling: FOLK.

3. -5 - my best score in frisbee golf

4. Fishing bores me to death, but I understand the allure

5. Travel can be amazingly good or bad. I enjoy traveling.

6. The only sports I care about anymore are 1) wrestling and 2) college football. That's pretty much it, although I can get excited during college bball's "Big Dance" on the rare occasions OU makes it deep in the tournament.

Edited by TobusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen religious and political debates destroy lifelong friendships. Doesn't mean I don't consume that information, but if you start talking politics with me (for example), I won't pay attention because it's not something I enjoy discussing.

 

I have my positions, but their mine. One year, I was explaining to members of one political party about why I was considering various candidates. I was immediately attacked for even considering anyone other than their candidate. These at the time, were two of my friends (I only say were because we lost touch after college).

 

I prefer to talk about things I enjoy, plain and simple. So wherever you stand politically, I don't really care. I'd rather discuss your positions on wrestling, music, fishing, disc golf, travel, sports -- things I enjoy talking about. That's what I mean when I say "I don't care about anyone's political theories." 

 

 

 

Wish more people were like you...also wish people could have factual debates without feeling the need to force feed their ideals down others throats (over-generalization, I'm aware there are people that have the ability to do this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...