Cael

[MPhillips]

18 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

....what was she doing then? sounds like worst of all worlds.

Think of it like Rokfin. That should clear it up...

[bnwtwg]

18 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

....what was she doing then? sounds like worst of all worlds.

True story - OF was originally created as an outlet for content creators to directly monetize their work via subscription-based free market environment. It just so happened to be taken over by the world's oldest profession. So if anything, it sounds as if she was using it for what it was actually created for.

[MPhillips]

3 minutes ago, bnwtwg said:

True story - OF was originally created as an outlet for content creators to directly monetize their work via subscription-based free market environment. It just so happened to be taken over by the world's oldest profession. So if anything, it sounds as if she was using it for what it was actually created for.

Beat ya to it...

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Beat ya to it...

... mp and the fast keyboard 

[dragit]

1 hour ago, happyvalet said:

Equating Syd and Starocci is disgusting work by you. Her alleged crime is speaking and his alleged crime is rape. Tf is wrong with you 

You took one sentence of a very long post and made a baseless claim that I was equating the two of their alleged conduct.  What I was saying in that one sentence in a very long post is that they both have very aggressive public personalities that many find abrasive, argumentative, and pugilistic, and if you combine those ingredients, you get combustibility which complicates something that even without those ingredients is a very serious subject.

With respect to that very serious subject, however, I was quite clear that the published allegation is that Starocci "seems to have been a renowned jerk and possibly a criminal," and I was also clear that a possible outcome of all this is that she will be a hero for having been the leading and courageous catalyst for reform.  And in fact I linked the two ideas--that I don't care for what I've seen of her personality and that she could end up a hero:  "but it's people like that who are often the only ones who can blow the top off an organization that has gotten out of control."  And I also allowed for the distinct possibility that my personal views about what I know about her might be attributable to my narrow-minded curmudgeonism in a parenthetical "recognizing that I simply do not understand a lot of what makes that generation tick."  

So nothing TF is wrong with me in terms of "equating . . . speaking and . . . rape" which I plainly did not and would not ever do.

[happyvalet]

6 minutes ago, dragit said:

You took one sentence of a very long post and made a baseless claim that I was equating the two of their alleged conduct.  What I was saying in that one sentence in a very long post is that they both have very aggressive public personalities that many find abrasive, argumentative, and pugilistic, and if you combine those ingredients, you get combustibility which complicates something that even without those ingredients is a very serious subject.

With respect to that very serious subject, however, I was quite clear that the published allegation is that Starocci "seems to have been a renowned jerk and possibly a criminal," and I was also clear that a possible outcome of all this is that she will be a hero for having been the leading and courageous catalyst for reform.  And in fact I linked the two ideas--that I don't care for what I've seen of her personality and that she could end up a hero:  "but it's people like that who are often the only ones who can blow the top off an organization that has gotten out of control."  And I also allowed for the distinct possibility that my personal views about what I know about her might be attributable to my narrow-minded curmudgeonism in a parenthetical "recognizing that I simply do not understand a lot of what makes that generation tick."  

So nothing TF is wrong with me in terms of "equating . . . speaking and . . . rape" which I plainly did not and would not ever do.

You also called her noxious, said you wouldn't want to be associated with her, and wouldn't want to spend a single minute with her. Some harsh words for a woman who... What? Was happy her husband's abuser lost a wrestling match?

I did not misconstrue your words. I focused on one particular part of your post that I found objectionable. Again, your quote was "I think the thing that makes it really difficult is that it seems like the big drivers of this are Ms. Bartlett and Starocci, both of whom are at best are undignified and at worst toxic people."

That is equating the two people. 

At best she is undignified? We must have different definitions of dignity. 

[dragit]

6 minutes ago, happyvalet said:

You also called her noxious, said you wouldn't want to be associated with her, and wouldn't want to spend a single minute with her. Some harsh words for a woman who... What? Was happy her husband's abuser lost a wrestling match?

I did not misconstrue your words. I focused on one particular part of your post that I found objectionable. Again, your quote was "I think the thing that makes it really difficult is that it seems like the big drivers of this are Ms. Bartlett and Starocci, both of whom are at best are undignified and at worst toxic people."

That is equating the two people. 

At best she is undignified? We must have different definitions of dignity. 

Yeah I addressed all that and nothing in this post contradicts my points, at all.

Your quoted sentence was about the way they engage in public discourse, speech only, not equating speech that I don't like (which is more than just one post about the Dake/Starocci match) with bad conduct (alleged rape), which is exactly what you said I said--a giant distortion of my post.

And I also said that my original post explicitly allowed for the idea that my negative gut reaction to her personality might be a result of my own curmudgeonliness and inability to engage effectively with the younger generation's standards of discourse.  And I further said, in both my posts, that it's possible that that style that I don't like may end up being the key trait that makes her a hero depending on how this turns out.

So, yes, there were some "harsh words," but they were tempered with self-reflection, with allowance for the potential greatness in the subject of those harsh words--and no matter how you cut it, nowhere near as harsh as claiming that someone equates speech with rape.  

[BruceyB]

3 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Think of it like Rokfin. That should clear it up...

Best comment I've seen in a while. Couldn't be more accurate.

[bnwtwg]

7 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Think of it like Rokfin. That should clear it up...

I will pay extra for Basch and the Bud Saylor to keep their clothes on. Enough boobs on Only Fans, ya?

[1032004]

14 hours ago, Hammerlock3 said:

....what was she doing then? sounds like worst of all worlds.

 

 

[headshuck]

Interesting.

[Dogbone]

1 hour ago, headshuck said:

Interesting.
 

Holy cow, you searched all of her tweets back to 2020!  Creep much.  

"Darn this women for not saying only wonderful things about PSU, I am going to search everything she has ever tweeted over the last 5+ years to find something she said when 17/18 years old and that will show the world who is undignified around here..."  

[headshuck]

Dramatic much? I didn’t post the link to her. It takes 60 seconds to scroll through someone’s tweets.

I have no dog bone in this fight.

[nhs67]

11 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

Holy cow, you searched all of her tweets back to 2020!  Creep much.  

"Darn this women for not saying only wonderful things about PSU, I am going to search everything she has ever tweeted over the last 5+ years to find something she said when 17/18 years old and that will show the world who is undignified around here..."  

It doesn't mean he did it... there are plenty of tweakers and creepers who find most of the information we post here - which then gets reposted.  @headshuck is top notch.

[1032004]

1 hour ago, headshuck said:

Interesting.
 

If she’s “famous,” it’s not because of being Beau Bartlett’s wife

[ionel]

1 hour ago, headshuck said:

Interesting.
 

We got some pretty reckless posters on these here boards ... just say'n.  

[Dogbone]

56 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

It doesn't mean he did it... there are plenty of tweakers and creepers who find most of the information we post here - which then gets reposted.  @headshuck is top notch.

Fair enough.  I guess I just wouldn't spend the time to look, even its its 60 seconds, or save the image of the tweet to repost it, so the act seems creepy to me, but my apologies to @headshuck if I went over the top.  

[Winners Circle]

16 hours ago, happyvalet said:

You also called her noxious, said you wouldn't want to be associated with her, and wouldn't want to spend a single minute with her. Some harsh words for a woman who... What? Was happy her husband's abuser lost a wrestling match?

I did not misconstrue your words. I focused on one particular part of your post that I found objectionable. Again, your quote was "I think the thing that makes it really difficult is that it seems like the big drivers of this are Ms. Bartlett and Starocci, both of whom are at best are undignified and at worst toxic people."

That is equating the two people. 

At best she is undignified? We must have different definitions of dignity. 

***ALLEGED abuser***

You're a big "guilty until proven innocent" guy huh?

[nhs67]

20 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

***ALLEGED abuser***

You're a big "guilty until proven innocent" guy huh?

You forgot to correct he 'Mrs. Bartlett' part of it, too, brosefino.

[wrestlingfan22]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

If she’s “famous,” it’s not because of being Beau Bartlett’s wife

She has 1 million followers on TikTok (but seems to hardly post on it)- the vast majority of people in the world and the US do not care at all about wrestling, much less the spouses of wrestlers. I wouldn't say she is famous, but much like Lucas Byrd and his GF, there is a whole group of people who only know the best NCAA wrestlers as Syd's Husband or Ellie's BF

[happyvalet]

1 hour ago, Winners Circle said:

***ALLEGED abuser***

You're a big "guilty until proven innocent" guy huh?

To understand someone, you have to look at things from their POV. I described Sydney's actions from her POV. 

[Winners Circle]

7 minutes ago, happyvalet said:

To understand someone, you have to look at things from their POV. I described Sydney's actions from her POV. 

Understanding her POV doesn't make Starocci an abuser. It makes him an alleged abuser, until he is found guilty in a court of law. 

[VakAttack]

5 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

Understanding her POV doesn't make Starocci an abuser. It makes him an alleged abuser, until he is found guilty in a court of law. 

Again, this is only true in terms of taking his freedom away, or taking money from him. We as humans form opinions on whatever standard we like.  As I've mentioned countless times, look no further than OJ Simpson,  Casey Anthony, and Sean "Diddy" Combs.

[Winners Circle]

13 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Again, this is only true in terms of taking his freedom away, or taking money from him. We as humans form opinions on whatever standard we like.  As I've mentioned countless times, look no further than OJ Simpson,  Casey Anthony, and Sean "Diddy" Combs.

At least those 3 people all faced criminal charges. Starocci, at this point in time, does not face any criminal charges. So we're supposed to declare him an abuser based on one article?

[MJD]

21 minutes ago, Winners Circle said:

At least those 3 people all faced criminal charges. Starocci, at this point in time, does not face any criminal charges. So we're supposed to declare him an abuser based on one article?

Look, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? That's a legal principle for the courtroom. It's about how the justice system operates, making sure the government has to prove someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be locked up. It's a protection against wrongful convictions...blah blah...

But outside of a court of law, in everyday life, we're totally allowed to speculate, discuss, and form opinions based on the information we have. If there's a lot of evidence pointing towards someone, or if their actions look suspicious, we're not legally bound to pretend they're saints until a judge bangs a gavel. We can absolutely talk about whether we think Starocci might be guilty, or that it looks like he did something wrong. Of course sometimes speculation goes overboard etc.

But we're just talking here, throwing out ideas

Edited Wednesday at 04:37 PM by MJD