T-Monay820 Wrote:I will admit that this supposedly small section of a-holes that come to games, and are ruining an otherwise wonderful and very exciting conference rivalry, is skewing my opinion of MD fans, but they do get the most media attention, probably similar to Duke being skewed by media hype. The main gripe I have is the assault on Renee Boozer. I could care less if you went and burned down your whole school. It would be a bit excessive, but it's not my program that is lighting up its own campus, so do what you want as far as that.

Actually you are dead wrong. You school has practiced a little thing called "bench burning" for years. As usual, because it is Duke, the media steers clear from reporting it as they would UMD, VA, etc. I read an article where during these "celebrations" kids got burned pretty badly. Drop your holier-than-though bullsh*t please.

kaisersayzo Wrote:Actually you are dead wrong. You school has practiced a little thing called "bench burning" for years. As usual, because it is Duke, the media steers clear from reporting it as they would UMD, VA, etc. I read an article where during these "celebrations" kids got burned pretty badly. Drop your holier-than-though bullsh*t please.

You do realize that the bench burning celebrations are strictly monitored, requiring that students acquire burn permits.

I'll post more when I get the time.

kaisersayzo Wrote:Actually you are dead wrong. You school has practiced a little thing called "bench burning" for years. As usual, because it is Duke, the media steers clear from reporting it as they would UMD, VA, etc. I read an article where during these "celebrations" kids got burned pretty badly. Drop your holier-than-though bullsh*t please.

How am I dead wrong? Bench burning is not as bad as you make it sound. The students who got burned usually were the ones who were trying to jump the fires, which are only allowed with school and fire department authorized burn permits. Besides, the students burn benches that they made, not burning down the school, and they hold these celebrations in a giant open field known as the Quad. If you wanted to go and torch your campus, knock yourself out. If you all get negative media attention, that's your problem and I really could care less. We have small bench burning sessions where some idiots try and jump the fires. Where in the hell did you come up with the "holier-than-thou" idea?

have you ever been to one of these "bench burnings"?

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:You can still refuse to admit students.

NO YOU CAN'T...you don't seem to understand what the point is here...the university is not going to risk a freakin lawsuit over first ammendment rights to get rid of a handful of t shirts (and that's all it is, maybe 400 at most at every game)

all it takes is one rich kid and his lawyer daddy to take the university to court if they infrigne upon his rights....do you get that yet?

do you know what the first ammendment is, because you are showing a blatent lack of knowledge, yet you continue to argue...this confuses me...are you arguing because you have this hard-on for maryland and our vulgairty or do you really not understand first ammendment law?

my guess is a little of both...

How did you ever get a journalism degree? You can't spell for sh*t.

doh

T-Monay820 Wrote:

kaisersayzo Wrote:Actually you are dead wrong. You school has practiced a little thing called "bench burning" for years. As usual, because it is Duke, the media steers clear from reporting it as they would UMD, VA, etc. I read an article where during these "celebrations" kids got burned pretty badly. Drop your holier-than-though bullsh*t please.

How am I dead wrong? Bench burning is not as bad as you make it sound. The students who got burned usually were the ones who were trying to jump the fires, which are only allowed with school and fire department authorized burn permits. Besides, the students burn benches that they made, not burning down the school, and they hold these celebrations in a giant open field known as the Quad. If you wanted to go and torch your campus, knock yourself out. If you all get negative media attention, that's your problem and I really could care less. We have small bench burning sessions where some idiots try and jump the fires. Where in the hell did you come up with the "holier-than-thou" idea?

You know T. Any way you look at it the "Bench Burning" "celebrations" are stupid and dangerous. I don't care that the students receive permits and do it in a wide open spaces. When I find the time I will post an article about an engineering school who did the same type of thing by creating the largest bon-fire in the world. This too was a tradition that received permits year after year and was held on schools grounds. The tradition stopped after the giant logs from the build fell down and killed a bunch of students.

Just because Duke University tries their best to have a legality clause strapped to every stupid behavior doesn't make it any less stupid.

The students that you refer to are no doubt the same type of students that get drunk and make the rest of the school look stupid. Whether they are burning school property or catching themselves on fire makes no difference. The bottom line is these actions should not happen on school property if not just to avoid stupid students making the University look bad.

So when I say stop with the holier-than-though act....that is exactly what I am talking about.

Coach Doh Wrote:How did you ever get a journalism degree? You can't spell for sh*t.

doh

yes, I put the same amount of thought and effort into my posts here than I do with work related items :rolleyes:

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:have you ever been to one of these "bench burnings"?

And this matters how?

T-Monay820 Wrote:

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:have you ever been to one of these "bench burnings"?

And this matters how?

I think it matters a great deal, you are speaking like an expert here, yet, just from your quick retort, it seems that you have never been to one of these "celebrations", so how can you know so much about them and be so sure about the details of them...

basically, all you "know" is hearsay, and that is all you know about any of the celebrations that have got out of hand at maryland as well, which is obvious from your blatent lack of knowledge...

it's the same with your agrument over the first ammendment, you are arguing without a real basis or knowledge about what you are arguing for and against...

so, again, I ask, why are you arguing, just for the sake of it, or because of the huge hard-on you seem to have for the maryland faithful...

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:have you ever been to one of these "bench burnings"?

I have. They are not dangerous... There are fire trucks in the area, it is controlled and in a specific area. They even have a freakin fire permit for it.

Next?

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:it's the same with your agrument over the first ammendment, you are arguing without a real basis or knowledge about what you are arguing for and against...

Show me where you have "the right to attend a sports game".

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:basically, all you "know" is hearsay, and that is all you know about any of the celebrations that have got out of hand at maryland as well, which is obvious from your blatent lack of knowledge...

Let's see, I'm sure I know more about the Duke bench burning celebrations because I happen to live less than 15 minutes from the celebrations and when ever the benchs go up in flames, its always covered in the local papers. And I also know people who participate in the festivities. All you know about Duke is also hearsay and maybe the biased diamondback newspaper.

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:nate, I'm not looking for bickering, I'm simple stating that you cannot tell the students what not to wear, that is infringing on their first ammendment rights....


and if you walked into a movie and yelled fire, there are numerous charges that I believe can be brought against you....GW may have said it, but it is a terrible analogy...

Am I allowed to walk onto a plane with a shirt that says "I have a bomb in my pocket."?

T-Monay820 Wrote:Let's see, I'm sure I know more about the Duke bench burning celebrations because I happen to live less than 15 minutes from the celebrations and when ever the benchs go up in flames, its always covered in the local papers. And I also know people who participate in the festivities. All you know about Duke is also hearsay and maybe the biased diamondback newspaper.

where have I ever said that I know anything about your celebrations? I didn't and I never pretended to...

and if the 'celebrations' are not a big deal, why are the local papers covering them?

btw it's kinda ironic you bring up the biased diamondback with all the wonderful talk about the chronicle in this very thread...

ps - "its always covered in the local papers. And I also know people who participate in the festivities"...that's hearsay, FYI

nate jonesacc Wrote:Am I allowed to walk onto a plane with a shirt that says "I have a bomb in my pocket."?

nate, if you really care...

While inciting a riot - like yelling "fire" in a theater - and hate speech or fighting words are not covered by the First Amendment, profanity-laced phrases are...

I suggest you research a 1971 Supreme Court case, Cohen v. California, which found a man wearing a "F--- the draft" T-shirt not guilty of lewd behavior

plus, because Maryland is a public university, it can't outlaw speech covered by the First Amendment.

T-Monay820 Wrote:

DamascusTerp2 Wrote:it's the same with your agrument over the first ammendment, you are arguing without a real basis or knowledge about what you are arguing for and against...

Show me where you have "the right to attend a sports game".

what would the university give as their reason for barring people from attending?
you suggested that they not allow anyone in that was wearing a profane shirt, correct? well, like I have said numerous times, and you have ignored, that is proteected by the UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT!

why are you so content with ignoring the consititution?

The '71 ruling determined that the government may not "make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense".

The "appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "**** the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction."

It doesn't state that they have to let you in. They cannot arrest you and try you for saying/displaying a four-letter word, but they do have the right to "prohibit 'maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct."

The "right to attend a sports game" is not guarenteed by the US Constitution nor the US Supreme Court.

T-Monay820 Wrote:The '71 ruling determined that the government may not "make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense".

The "appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "**** the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction."

It doesn't state that they have to let you in. They cannot arrest you and try you for saying/displaying a four-letter word, but they do have the right to "prohibit 'maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct."

The "right to attend a sports game" is not guarenteed by the US Constitution nor the US Supreme Court.

Agreed...good work!

DT2???

Well, no baggies and not even a single chant towards Strawberry. Most of the time it was "GAAARRRRY!" or "oh!"s. So much for that article.