Pushing the team to its limit...or abuse?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Your information on Gerald Myers is so wrong. Myers fought light hell to keep Leach last year when he was talking to Washington. Myers was pissed that Leach didn't ask for permission to speak to them, and leach held them over a barrel if they wanted to retain him. Myers knew his butt was in a sling if Leach got away. Then, after the deal, leach had a to ...[text shortened]... goes after Bob Stoops. That leaves Mike Leach running Sooner nation. Only fitting I suppose.

This ought to be a real eye opener for you. Notice the date on the e-mail where Myers says he hopes Leach hangs around for another year so that they can have time to find a coach to replace him. It's in Jan 2009!

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/12-09/1231leachblack.pdf


Tech is screwed.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
I got hit by my Father ONCE!!!! I wasn't going to ever have that happen again. The fear of it happening again was a deterrent. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

In High School, I knew the rules, and I elected to break them. I knew what the punishment was going to be if I got caught. That is risk vs reward/punishment. I only got busted one time when I wasn't guilty. ...[text shortened]... resting to see how you will have to deal with it, and if the world will survive.

so why do you think you feared being hit by your dad again and not at school? do you think if you weren't getting hit at school you wouldn't have feared it as much at home and maybe pushed the limits more?

i have only gotten into three fights during my lifetime and all when i was pretty young (10-13) and didn't lose any of them... in theory i should've lost one of them but got in a lucky dig. other than those i've tended a avoid resorting to physical combat to settle a dispute. actually i was doing jujitsu when i got into the first couple so you could argue that my learning how to fight resulted in me getting into them. now i'd try anything to weasel myself out of a fight even if i felt confident of winning it. but that's just me.

For some reason, you equate physical hitting of a child as abusive or as "beating". When I think of "beating" someone looks like a bloody mess when it is done. Spankings, are not beatings. They are also, quite often, effective in molding discipline and educating the child as to the risk/reward/punishment for certain behavior. I believe it is very effective, but not always.

i'm sure it can be effective, i'm not disputing that i'm just saying i think there's always a better solution. i guess i'm more arguing against parents who see 'spanking' a child as the only means of discipline... even if it's so clearly not working. i remember seeing a woman hitting her child at the supermarket once because he was acting up or something... the child i would guess was around 2 1/2 years old. various studies have shown that children don't know right from wrong until they're at least 3 years old and even then i'm sure some kids would be later than that. i've seen other kids being slapped in public but that was probably the youngest... then the kid started to cry and probably acted worse than he was before being hit, i asked her if that ever worked and she couldn't/didn't answer. i personally wouldn't hit my child, would try everything humanly possible before even thinking about it but if someone says they've only hit their child a couple of times and it worked when everything else they tried failed i probably wouldn't ague with them, it's the ones who think a spank is the only way and are to lazy/stupid to try anything else.

i've blocked a lot of my childhood out (i've always had a selective memory) but there's one instance that i remember quite well. i think i was about 8 maybe 9 years old and my sister told on me for swearing, my mum was at home and she send me to my room and i didn't get any dinner (my sister ended up feeling guilty for ratting me out and smuggled up a bun) but that worked, i never said those words in-front of any family members until my late teens. i know for a fact if i had been slapped for that it wouldn't have had the same effect.

i was taught to be polite and for the most part in person i am, i'm respectful to others that i don't know.. whatever age but that doesn't mean that i respect them. i don't think slapped vs not slapped has anything to do with a child being polite or respecting others. i think they copy their parents and general environment in that area.


So, you tell me, do you think how my children were raised was effective? Parents who don't do a good job of parenting, instilling a value system, providing a system of discipline and regimen, do a great disservice to their children and to society. That is why we are in the shape we are in. We as a society are too lenient on bad behavior. If you make the punishment for the crime harsh, the crime will dwindle. Too many bleeding hearts preach compassion and reformation, which, as a rule, has shown to be ineffective. The good thing is, this society won't be my problem to deal with for many more years. It will be your generations problem. It will be interesting to see how you will have to deal with it, and if the world will survive.

you'd have to ask them but yes it would appear that it was. and you can't ague with results, right?

i'm not going to get into the rest because it will just turn into another capitol punishment debate but i will say that i think the punishment for certain crimes is too lenient. as far as at home goes, i think a 'spanking' is the easy way for a parent. it may or may not work but for me personally i could always think of something worse.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I second every bit of shortcircuit's post. Indeed society has become to lenient, too uncriitical of every bad behvior and has laid aside the usefulness of guilt in getting people to become better. No one supports or condones wanton violence with no purpose other than to strike fear in a child, but letting things go is far more harmful than a mild spanki ...[text shortened]... clear understanding of boundaries. In other words, kids and I are firendly, but not firends!

It certainly sounds like you are a better parent than your older best friend parent. I never recommended "doing your kids science projects for them or letting everything slide". But you can have rules, be in charge and have clear and high expectations without ruling with violence. I have a job there a clear expectations. I never hit or threatening to hit anyone and my bosses never hit or threaten to hit me. Why would anyone recommend an abusive paradigm when non-abusive rule making seems effective?

Originally posted by quackquack
It certainly sounds like you are a better parent than your older best friend parent. I never recommended "doing your kids science projects for them or letting everything slide". But you can have rules, be in charge and have clear and high expectations without ruling with violence. I have a job there a clear expectations. I never hit or threatening to ...[text shortened]... Why would anyone recommend an abusive paradigm when non-abusive rule making seems effective?

There is a great difference. You are characterizing any physical means of punishment as abuse. I never said you recommended doing kids' science projects, I merely cited it as an example of bad parenting. Let me make clear how much I admire you for your work and all teachers who are truly dedicated. However, unlike parenting, you don't have to live with your failures. Those kids move on and you get new kids. A parent is held responsible for a poor outcome forever, even by the kid. Therefore, to err on the side of being strict is always better than leniency. Unfortunately many. many parents want to be their kids' friend instead of a parent.

I really have no criticism for shortcircuit as long as the outcome was good and the children contribute to society. The blanket diapproval of spanking as a violent paradigm is unnecessarily categorizing all physical means of discipline unfarily and not backed by any credible science. I highly disapprove, however, of phsyical punishment being adminstered by a non-parent, whether it be teacher, stepparent, coach, as these people, not knowing or loving the subject, have no built in restraint mechanism. Again, I do not condone hitting vital areas, leaving bruises or using any humiliating means of punishment!

Anyone interested in discussing the Leach thing? It looks like ESPN put out a lot of "James" side of the issue as if it was fact. I hope ESPN and Tech lose a lot of money on this.

Originally posted by Eladar
Anyone interested in discussing the Leach thing? It looks like ESPN put out a lot of "James" side of the issue as if it was fact. I hope ESPN and Tech lose a lot of money on this.

Why are you always so negative? Tech intervened to protect a student athlete. Should this be criticized. How come you favor Darth Vader Leach? He is a sorry piece of garbage if he thinks he can deprive a student of liberty and ridicule him for having a concussion. James may be a lazy player. If so bench him. End of stroy. leach would have his job. What money is Tech going to lose? Leach serves at will. His job is not his belonging. It is Tech's to do with as they please. They still had a "cause" reason for dismissal. if Leach is too stupid to realize this then he needs to be selling fertilizer.

Originally posted by Eladar
Anyone interested in discussing the Leach thing? It looks like ESPN put out a lot of "James" side of the issue as if it was fact. I hope ESPN and Tech lose a lot of money on this.

Yeah, the head trainer's remarks and those emails you posted early don't look good for
Tech. But, if the real reason Leach was fired (as Tech is saying) was because of his
"insubordination" during the investigation I wonder if there is anything that Leach can
legally fight -- even if there is evidence that they were just waiting for him to do
something wrong so they could fire him.

All in all, it is a fun situation. At the very least, Tech has proven that they are a bunch of pricks who don't mind manipulating people. Giving a guy a contract with no intention of upholding it is just wrong. People who do that are evil and hope there is a special place in hell for them.

Not as bad as other special places, but hell is where they should be.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Why are you always so negative? Tech intervened to protect a student athlete. Should this be criticized. How come you favor Darth Vader Leach? He is a sorry piece of garbage if he thinks he can deprive a student of liberty and ridicule him for having a concussion. James may be a lazy player. If so bench him. End of stroy. leach would have his job. What ...[text shortened]... for dismissal. if Leach is too stupid to realize this then he needs to be selling fertilizer.

Deprive him of liberty??? 😕

I think it's clear that this case isn't about Adam Jones anymore. There has been no
evidence that Leach did anything wrong with Adam Jones. Was Adam pampered? No.
Is there anything wrong with not pampering a "me me me" former player's son? Well,
it seems that maybe there is...

This has become Leach vs. Tech. Yes, Tech stepped in to conduct an investigation of
possible wrongdoing against one of its student-athletes and it seems that Leach wasn't
cooperative. Was his non-cooperation (or "insubordination" as Tech is saying) reason
enough to fire him? After seeing these emails between Tech brass last year, I'm not
so sure. It seems that they were looking for any little indiscretion to fire him. Maybe
that's fine, legally. But in my opinion it sure makes Tech look like a second-rate
organization. Seems you already have your mind made up about Leach though, so
I'm guessing that the facts might not have any sway on your opinion. I don't know
the guy personally, but from what I see he's gotten the rotten end of the deal.

Originally posted by Traveling Again
Deprive him of liberty??? 😕

I think it's clear that this case isn't about Adam Jones anymore. There has been no
evidence that Leach did anything wrong with Adam Jones. Was Adam pampered? No.
Is there anything wrong with not pampering a "me me me" former player's son? Well,
it seems that maybe there is...

This has become Leach vs. Tec ...[text shortened]... ow
the guy personally, but from what I see he's gotten the rotten end of the deal.

Who the heck is Adam Jones? If it is James you mean he was not allowed to leave the shed. That is unlawful deprivation of liberty. Tech has a strong case for dismissal indeed! Leach should be in jail already!

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Who the heck is Adam Jones? If it is James you mean he was not allowed to leave the shed. That is unlawful deprivation of liberty. Tech has a strong case for dismissal indeed! Leach should be in jail already!

If I was in charge I would have executed him already. And anyone with the last name of Jones or James just so I didn't get confused again. 🙂

Originally posted by Eladar
All in all, it is a fun situation. At the very least, Tech has proven that they are a bunch of pricks who don't mind manipulating people. Giving a guy a contract with no intention of upholding it is just wrong. People who do that are evil and hope there is a special place in hell for them.

Not as bad as other special places, but hell is where they should be.

Of course, you believe it is alright for the other side to negotiate in bad faith by showing no loyalty and lying about jobs they were requested to interview for (when in fact they were not requested) in order to jack up a salary boost?

I have already said James was a lazy kid and his daddy was attempting to manipulate the system. I also said sticking him in a dark room was no major punishment and was nothing more than mental warfare. But, please, don't try to paint Tech as the bad guys here. There is plenty of bad to go around on both sides. Leach is a prima donna who was almost single-handed built up by Brent Musburger who had his nose 4 feet up Leach's keester. Furthermore, Leach's agent is a scumbag and has been for years.
Gerald Meyers is a piece of work too, but Leach repeated left footprints on his back and was constantly usurping the AD's position for his own whims.

All in all, the whole bunch of them are getting what they deserve, but don't try to paint anyone as the villain here.

Of course, you believe it is alright for the other side to negotiate in bad faith by showing no loyalty and lying about jobs they were requested to interview for (when in fact they were not requested) in order to jack up a salary boost?

Let him go! No need to play games. If you don't like the fact that he's not loyal, let him leave. Don't offer contracts you have no intention of honoring.

Originally posted by uzless
Correction..you can teach SOME kids without having to hit them. Some kids only respond to a smack on the arse. It's time we put away these notions of one size fits all.

Every other animal on this planet uses a bit of violence to bring its kid into line...why are we any different?

Well, in Canada the law tells you that you can't smack your child, it is called abuse, and you can have your child taken from you and face a possible jail sentence.

Rather you agree or not, that is the law.

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Well, in Canada the law tells you that you can't smack your child, it is called abuse, and you can have your child taken from you and face a possible jail sentence.

Rather you agree or not, that is the law.

Here in Oklahoma the state legislature passed statement reminding parents that it is alright to spank your children.