Sunday, January 29, 2012

A story of New Years' stupidity on the Simple English Wikipedia

About 10pm my time on the 30th of December, I wrote "Happy new Year!" on Simple Talk (ST), and bluegoblin7 (aka bleep) removed it and said I was offtopic and gave me an only warning. I took to IRC and tried to initiate a private discussion with him. He then proceeded to copy and paste my comments to him to a public forum where Kennedy (aka Normandy) promptly started yelling at me for starting a religious war cause the calendar celebrating the new year was the "Christian calendar".

I called him a few names and tried to reason with him that this was stupid and that everyone in the civil world would be celebrating the new year. He said it was beside the point because I had been warned against putting blanket holiday messages on ST before and I violated it again (even though he himself in 2010 did an April Fool's blanket message on ST). So I tried to move on and make a joke out of it, and stupidly created a twitter account the next day (@BG7says) where I would post quotes by him from IRC and Wikipedia that I thought were him being too up tight to try and get him to lighten up.

Only three people knew of the account, or so I thought (Gordonrox24, orashmatash and PiRSquared), PiR later admitted to ratting me out to Kennedy, who promptly warned me about putting libelious stuff and personally attacking BG7 publically on my talk page then pointed it out on IRC then on BG7's talk page and finally on AN.

I then got warned by Nonvocalscream, at that point I saw my error, deleted the account and promply apologized to the community and BG7 (thrice), but they wouldn't have it and started moving towards and ban, so rather than suffer another ban, I retired.

When I returned to #wikipedia-simple the following day, BG7 met me with "what are you doing here?" comments. I said I was here because I could be, to which he replied "BTW if you ever un-retire I will promptly start a petition to have you banned". We argued again which culminated with me getting sick of him treating me like a pile of garbage and I called him a "hateful prick" he then asked me if I was "homophobic" and I said no.

I didn't talk to him for a few weeks, then the day before the English Wikipedia blackout on January 18, I asked his permission on IRC to come out of retirement for the day to help with the expected influx of vandalism and confused enWP users wondering what's going on. He responded negatively and reiterated that if I edit even once he would start a proposal to have me banned. Which astonished myself. DjSasso then suggested that if he wanted to act that way, I should let him fall on his butt. So I let it go.

We haven't had a conversation since. However, on January 29, with the encouragement of Chenzw, I returned to Simple English Wikipedia as a full time editor and, as promised, a ban discussion was started. It failed to have me banned finally putting an end to the saga.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

In defense of Joe Paterno...

I retrieved the following from a comment section on this article, it is a rebuttal to that article. NOTE: I did not write this. I don't own the rights to this, this is simply a copy and paste to spread the rebuttal more effectively. The rights to the rebuttal belong to its author, Stacy B. Gray.

I am sorry Mr. Hamby, but I think you are off base here. I have read your article, and I have read the indictment. No one is saying that child abuse, be it sexual or otherwise, is anything less than the most heinous of crimes. No one is saying that the guilty should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No one is suggesting anything but compassion for the victims of this terrible episode. And no one is suggesting that Justice isn't terribly overdue.

Chastise me if you wish, but please consider:

First of all: Mr. Paterno's legacy is one of honesty and integrity. Football happened to be his avocation, but his purpose in life was to teach all that life was about doing the right thing, of accepting responsibility for your actions and the consequences thereof. Say what you like, but up until the end he lived that conviction. He never tried to obfuscate the facts, never made excuses, never tried to shift the blame or avoid responsibility. He never asked to be excused, never asked for the displays of support, and did indeed direct focus back to the seriousness of the matter. Above all else Joe Paterno was a man of integrity. To deny that is disingenuous.

Secondly, with all else being hearsay, consider the facts as determined in the indictment. There is only one instance that suggests that Paterno had any knowledge that there was anything improper occurring, that being the case of victim number 2. No one disputes that the grad student in question failed in his direct legal and moral responsibility to immediately act upon the situation he discovered. That he did not is despicable. In my opinion as a football player half Sandusky's age there was no reason that he did not immediately and personally intervene to protect the child. This man failed. Further he did nothing to report the matter to anyone save his own father. His father then failed to direct his son to make proper reports or to make any report of his own. On March 1, 2002 these were the only people that we are aware of who could have, and should have intervened to protect the child. This is where the anger should be focused.

According to the indictment not until the following day, contrary to state law and moral obligation, did the grad student in question make a verbal report to Mr. Paterno. Save for this single event Mr. Paterno would not be involved in this travesty in any way. Had the grad student made his report to a police agency or any other person on earth, Joe Paterno would not now be involved.

According to the indictment, Paterno responded by reporting the matter to his immediate supervisor, Tim Curley, Penn State athletic director. There is no indication why Curley did not respond immediately, but it does state that Sunday morning Curley arrived at Paterno's home and Paterno reported to him what the grad student had reported to him. Please keep in mind that at this point this becomes nothing more than hearsay evidence as Paterno did not witness the incident. He was no more knowledgeable, no more involved, no more obligated than if he had overheard something on the street - except for his position in the University hierarchy.

Anyone who has been employed in a multilevel organization must recognize the position of Paterno as a middle manager. Charged with responsibilities to do, they are also charged with responsibility to, and with obligation to the organizational structure. The organization establishes its policy, those employed by it are obligated to that policy. In this case the state statute is clear, and I am sure that Penn State's policy is in compliance therewith: “Pennsylvania's mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse is located at 23 PA. §6311(child protective services) and provides that when a staff member reports abuse, pursuant to statute, the person in charge of the school or institution has the responsibility and legal obligation to report or cause such a report to be made by telephone and in writing within 48 hours to the Department of Public welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Clearly having reported the matter up the chain of command Paterno was not only relieved of responsibility to, but deprived of authority to report the matter further. It became the obligation of the University.

I would point out that as an employee of a Pennsylvania mandatory reporting agency, those are my exact orders. Should such a matter come to my attention I am to immediately report it to the chairperson of the agency, my immediate supervisor. Any other action on my part is both contrary to legal statute and in violation of the policies and procedures of the organization. While it would be unlikely that I would be prosecuted, I could well be subject to termination should I do otherwise.

At some point, and the indictment is not clear as to when (though I have read elsewhere that the call was made from Paterno's that Sunday morning), Curley reported the matter to his supervisor Gary Schultz, senior vice president for finance and business. Of note here is that according to page 10 of the indictment "Schultz oversaw the University police as part of his position". Now I don't know how other states handle campus police forces, but in Pennsylvania it is my understanding that large campuses incorporate as a municipality and hence have municipal police authority and responsibility. Penn State University Park Campus police force are not mall cops, they are a law enforcement agency. Just as it would be if a Councilman had made a report to a city police Commissioner, as such the matter was reported to the police agency having legal jurisdiction. That Schultz failed to act upon it in that capacity is reprehensible and he needs to be held cupable. But the fact that Paterno was aware that his report had been forwarded to the person who could have, and should have acted upon it in my opinion absolves Paterno from further responsibility. As far as he knew the matter had been reported appropriately and was now both a police matter and a personnel matter, none of which Paterno should expect to have any further input to or report from.

The fact is that he was subsequently advised that Sandusky’s campus privileges had been restricted with regards to bringing children onto the campus. It was not his responsibility nor his authority to enforce that, indeed as noted in the indictment,(Page 11) such restriction was impossible to enforce.

Admittedly there are a disgusting number of similar post fact allegations of wrongdoing on University property and in the purlieu of what could have been considered Paterno's realm. Please keep in mind that Paterno headed the football program. Also consider that the sports complex as alluded to is a large network of buildings and facilities. Paterno was not a conventional professor, not responsible for a specific location save during the football season. I would not expect that he was frequenting the places in question, and certainly not on Sandusky's level. There are no allegations that any of these incidents had anything to do with Paterno's football program, except of course that Sandusky brought his charges with him to games and events and to use the facilities.

I cannot believe that Paterno was in any way connected to the campus grapevine or rumor mill. That was not his style. If there were any rumors, any allegations, any suspicions of wrongdoing on his turf I would not expect that Paterno was aware of them. If there had been he would have, he did deal with them immediately, openly and upfront. That was his style.

Also remember that, as noted in the indictment, page 11, Sandusky retired in 1999 when “Paterno felt it was time to make a coaching change". For whatever reason at that point Paterno decided he didn't want Sandusky around. It was the University, not Paterno, that negotiated professor emeritus status and campus privilege for Sandusky. There are no indications that after Sandusky's retirement the two associated, except casually in mutually attended functions. Think about it, would you socialize with the guy who fired you? What is indicated is that Paterno had concerns about Sandusky being involved with both the University football program and his sponsored youth program. He questioned the wisdom of that and had it resolved - Sandusky was done.
Finally, please consider that to the best of my knowledge in the United States of America individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty. Sandusky has apparently been afforded that privilege. Joe Paterno was not. Without charge of any kind, without indication of wrongdoing on his part, with no motivation other than that he was the face of the University, Joe Paterno was lynched by the mob of public opinion. I think that is a terrible injustice to a man who lived personal integrity and responsibility. Joe Paterno deserved better than that if for no other reason than being a citizen of the United States. This gentleman who stood above reproach in all his dealings was condemned to this ignominious end through jealousy of those who could not defeat him otherwise.

This whole matter has been handled in a manner reminiscent of the night rides of the KKK - though perhaps not nearly as genteelly. Guilty or not, hang somebody that looks like Penn State (you know they all look alike!), then blame it on them for being uppity, arrogant or successful.

Mr. Hamby you stated “That is the bottom line. There is no discussion. Not, at least, in the minds of people who think justice is for everyone, and that moral dispensations are not part of the compensation package for famous people.” Where is Mr. Paterno’s Justice? Who is seeking moral dispensation to express their untimely outrage?

I believe, Mr. Hamby, that you owe Mr. Paterno and his family an apology. That Justice too is terribly overdue. Rest in Peace Joe Paterno. May you have in death the dignity you were robbed of in life.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Is MLK's dream reality?

Is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream reality yet? I don't think so. I think he'd be disgusted how some black leaders like Al Sharpton, or even some white leaders, continue play the race card whenever they dang well please to demonize their opponents, even when race is not involved. I don't think his dream is reality yet, it's close, but no cigar.

I think he'd facepalm at how people still race bait. His dream of blacks and whites being able to live in harmony is not reality. There are still people who instead of building a logical counterargument, would rather resort to race card playing.

Sure, things are a lot nicer then when they were when Dr. King delivered that extraordinary speech that August afternoon back in 1963. Dr. King said that day "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." Despite his calls for this people on both sides continue to do it anyway.

The day Dr. King's dream becomes reality will be a joyful day. It will be a day when skin color is nothing but a footnote. The day Dr. King's dream is reality is the day God's children whill love thy neighbor as themselves. The day his dream is reality is the day America rises up and "live[s] out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'"

How I look forward to this day. I look forward to celebrating our nations accomplishments of abolishing white/black supremacy, abolishment of slavery, and abolishment of racial discrimination.

On this day, me and my brother from another mother Kendrick will stroll down N 5th Street screaming for joy that at last White and Black parameters no longer exist, we are just humans and God's children.

One day, Dr. King's dream will be reality. It may take another 30 years, but it will happen, I have every faith that our nation can do it. Until then, the nation will march on. Working towards this magnificent day.

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, everyone! Long live the dream!

Friday, January 6, 2012

The problem with Atheists

The problem with atheists, they think just because they're "free thinkers" they have the right to judge those who choose to be faithful and spiritual.

The problem with Atheists are that they are generally hypocrites, most of them anyway, there are exceptions. They whine about how people who believe in a religion are "holier than thou" and "better than you" then they go and act the same way.

The problem with Atheists is that they think just because they're on the internet they can be as mean and hateful as they can be.

The problem with Atheists is that they think just because they have Google it makes them all-knowing.

I have a message for all the Atheists that act this way: You're bigoted, mean spirited, hateful, hypocritical, judgmental, and in general a butthole. Being an Athiests means you have chosen that believing in a god is not for you. That's it. It does not give you the right to go around telling the faithful that they're ignorant, stupid, dumb, close minded, bigoted, homophobic, or just all around a waste of skin. The only thing being Atheist give you the right of is to expect a surprise come your date of death, or at least that's what I believe. But in this life, being an Atheist is nothing more than a choice to reject the existence of a god.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Blogger mobile app

I got the Blogger mobile app so now I can blog on the go! Hope to share more with you now!