Dave Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Stay on topic. Remember that descending to personal attacks is cause for suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Stay on topic. Remember that descending to personal attacks is cause for suspension. The topic itself and this whole thread seems to have turned into what is a personal attack and what is a warranted comment/concern. Edited November 14, 2009 by bmroth1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stick Stack Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 It is slanderous...I dont recall molestation ever part of the charge. The context was not hypothetrical...read the comments. I disagree. It was hypothetical. Here's the response that we were talking about- My point would be, I don't think it's judging someone if I choose not to let someone who pleads "no contest" or is aquitted of child molestation charges watch my kids. Great...the court finds them not guilty...but if I do let them watch my kids and that person molests them, everyone will point the finger at me for being stupid enough to leave my kids in the company of someone who had been accused of molesting children.Of course this is hypothetical, and not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but you see what I'm saying. He was most likely responding to his right to make choices based on the information. You can consider it in poor taste but the post made a clear point in my opinion. It was also given with the caveat that it's a hypotethical situation meant to illustrate a point. Anyways, you yourself conceded in your next post that it is hypothetical. You did slander him by bringing up child molestation. you implied there were issues with children which is totally unacceptable by bringing that up.My point is your are making up hypothetical situationswhen there is no need to especially in a public forum. For the record, so everyone is clear and that this particular issue is hopefully moot, the case had nothing specifically to do with children or child molestation, other than the possible indirect exposure because the incident took place in a secluded area of a park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) What does low income areas and my daughter have anything to do with this? Are you really comparing this to a common sense decision? Really??Its people like you who cause all the rumor mongering in this world. If you have a problem with it dont support the Colts then. But dont come on a public forum and start throwing words like "molestation" around. Its completely irresponsible. Oh and by the way Mr. know it all he did not leave Spirit. he was working with them this summer. I know because I was there...were you? Oh wait you werent....so your statement is without merit also. He did not just disappear...he was working with them this summer. You did slander him by bringing up child molestation. you implied there were issues with children which is totally unacceptable by bringing that up. My point is your are making up hypothetical situations when there is no need to especially in a public forum. personal attack removed - ds Botttom line, unnecessary risk. Totally unnecessary. And just to reiterate. I'm not at all saying he's a bad guy, bad friend, evil, poor designer, etc. I don't know him. He could absolutely be one of the nicest persons I could ever meet. Once again, that's not the issue. Edited November 14, 2009 by Dave removing personal attack - ds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 For the record, so everyone is clear and that this particular issue is hopefully moot, the case had nothing specifically to do with children or child molestation, other than the possible indirect exposure because the incident took place in a secluded area of a park. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAvery Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) I would disagree. Pleading no contest is just that. How do you know he was not interested in being found innocent? Did you speak to him...I thought not.So once again your jumping to a conclusion. So let me get this straight. Even though he did not plead innocent, I am to assume he is innocent? What are the facts? He was in a public park with an undercover officer and was charged with a crime. Those are the facts. Whether you think it was a crime is not the issue. Whether you think is a great guy is not the issue. Whether you think the charges were false is not the issue. The fact is he was charged with a crime and did not plead innocent. Whatever his motivation was, he did not plead innocent. I do not know his motivation. Could be he was really guilty of the charge? Maybe. Could it be that he was innocent and thought it easiest to plead no contest and keep his certificate and teach again? Maybe. Had he been found innocent this thread would not exist. Had he been found guilty this thread would not exist. Because he pleaded no contest the speculation continues. Parents and members will have to decide for themselves if they feel comfortable with his decision. He left the door open. Edited November 14, 2009 by DAvery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 As a Colts alumnus, I trust Greg Orwoll and his judgment. Even more, I trust Mike Grimes to mess up anyone who holds the organization back/causes harm faster than you could possibly imagine. It seems to me that these are the two constants being brought up by those who have worked with and/or marched in the Colts organization. Anyone who has spent time with Mr. Grimes knows he doesn't mess around when it comes to his corps. I wish the Colts the best of luck and cannot wait to see what the Red Team brings to the field this summer. As a recent age-out, it'll be difficult to watch from the sidelines but I'm confident that the corps will not be held back by the issues being discussed at length in this thread. Greg Orwoll was not oblivious to the decision he was making when hiring Mr. Nelson. I believe we should trust the leadership of an organization especially committed to the experience of its members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paralda Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) I personally think it is a bad choice. For the following reason:http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/band-1238...s-tibbetts.html I remember when that happened... I also remember Choctaw going on to win State a month later. It would be irrelevant if it was hearsay, but an undercover cop in the park at 4 am and a man doing what was said rings a bad tone. I'd like to point out that it was 4 PM, not AM. Edited November 15, 2009 by Paralda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It's probably best that you don't do that. Based on your opinion and nothing else, you have reached your conclusion. That is all. OK, their reputation took a hit in my book and I am sure many others would say the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donimator002 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I would say Colt's Leadership knew fully about this man before they made the decision to hire him. Additionally, I would put faith in Mike Grimes to keep everyone in line be it member or staff or anyone who would possibly negatively impact the organization. For anyone who has been around him, you know that he does not fool around and will put people in there place or get rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts