southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Tadano didn't put it on his resume. He did, however, have to explain why he had been essentially banished from Japanese Baseball. So I guess you think it's good now? Me? I never thought it was good. I am having a hard time understanding your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 He did, however, have to explain why he had been essentially banished from Japanese Baseball. So I guess you think it's good now? I think this is the reason (and only reason) this story needed to come out - it would eventually come out that he was banished in Japan and sooner or later some writer would have 'broken' the story so the player beat him to it. Somewhat similar to what happen to Tim Allen and his drug conviction (writer threatened to come out with the story so he beat the writer to it and told the world, so to speak). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 No, I think those are 2 different things. Lying and saying you had experience about coaching and stuff is different from not saying you did gay porn. One will cost a team wins and one means NOTHING in terms of the sport. Apples and oranges. I don't understand how this has anything to do with the team. Porn and baseball are completely unrelated--this won't affect the Indians performance--unless he tore his shoulder doing somehting utterly kinky. Saying that this is equal to what O'Leary did is completely absurd. First of all how does this cost you wins? I don't understand that part. It wasn't comparing the two that way. I am essentially saying that he can't hide it. It is out there and everyone knows about it. Therefore whether he wants it to be or not, whether he states it or not, it is on his resume. Just as being a liar is on O'Leary's. Alrighty then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I think this is the reason (and only reason) this story needed to come out - it would eventually come out that he was banished in Japan and sooner or later some writer would have 'broken' the story so the player beat him to it. Somewhat similar to what happen to Tim Allen and his drug conviction (writer threatened to come out with the story so he beat the writer to it and told the world, so to speak). The story has been out for years. For some reason the homophobic media keeps dredging it up every year or so, so that they can sell some newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The story has been out for years. For some reason the homophobic media keeps dredging it up every year or so, so that they can sell some newspapers. This is the first I've heard of it. Then again, who the hell am I, might I ask... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 The story has been out for years. For some reason the homophobic media keeps dredging it up every year or so, so that they can sell some newspapers. Cool, homophobic media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 First of all how does this cost you wins? I don't understand that part. It wasn't comparing the two that way. I am essentially saying that he can't hide it. It is out there and everyone knows about it. Therefore whether he wants it to be or not, whether he states it or not, it is on his resume. Just as being a liar is on O'Leary's. Alrighty then. Not playing college ball, in my humble opinion, would have cost ND wins--and they were right to fire him. It was a malicious lie that would have hurt the team. Because he wouldn't have had the ability to have the psychological insight to a lot of the playing and stuff. So, that's my clarification of that point. Doing gay porn does NOT hurt the team. That was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Hey Tex, or any of the other daily poll mavens... I assumed by now you would have started working on the hypothetical "How much $$ would it take for you to switch hit?" poll. I may need one more zero on the offer than some, and SSIrish may need one more zero than me, but everybody (EVERYBODY) has their price. Maybe Jason would need to be offered ownership of the White Sox, while others would settle for dinner and a movie – watching, not starring in it, of course... Who's willing to take a poll on who's willing to, er..., take a pole...? Ownership of the Sox and maybe I'd listen . Although deep down I just don't think I could. Have nothing against people who do though. And wasn't this article pretty old? I rember, I think it was Cerb, posted this back when they signed him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 This is the first I've heard of it. Then again, who the hell am I, might I ask... Is has been talked about even in the US press, ever since Cleveland talked about signing this guy. This has been in the Japanese media ever since the tape hit the black market. I first heard of this last year during this time, or maybe spring training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Is has been talked about even in the US press, ever since Cleveland talked about signing this guy. This has been in the Japanese media ever since the tape hit the black market. I first heard of this last year during this time, or maybe spring training. Not arguing with ya, just saying this is the first I heard of this story, or as it seems, non-story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Not playing college ball, in my humble opinion, would have cost ND wins--and they were right to fire him. It was a malicious lie that would have hurt the team. Because he wouldn't have had the ability to have the psychological insight to a lot of the playing and stuff. So, that's my clarification of that point. Doing gay porn does NOT hurt the team. That was my point. Huh? A lot of coaches don't play college ball. O'Leary coached how long at Georgia Tech? He had years of experience and was pretty damn good. I think this is why he was even considered for the job. He took an awful Minnesota Vikings defense and made it respectable. I highly doubt this would have cost ND any more wins. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The guy making a sex tape in college isn't any of ESPN's business or anybody's business. There are certain aspects of personal life that need to be kept from the scutinous media spotlight. Now, if he pulled a Ray Carruth and killed his girlfriend so he wouldn't have to pay child support then I could see all the hoopla over it. Hell, the guy did this in college. I'm sure most MLB players have interesting, to say the least, stories about their exploits in college. The media just needs to go back to what it's best at: covering Michael Jackson and shark attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Huh? A lot of coaches don't play college ball. O'Leary coached how long at Georgia Tech? He had years of experience and was pretty damn good. I think this is why he was even considered for the job. He took an awful Minnesota Vikings defense and made it respectable. I highly doubt this would have cost ND any more wins. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. It's on his resume now, I don't care if he states it or not. The whole baseball world knows about it. Just like O'Leary lied about stuff he put on his resume. Now he can add liar to that because everyone in the football world knows he lied. Not quite the same, but you get the point. Are you defending O'leary now, because he lied about his "experience"(that related to his Job) to get a job. And Tadano, lied about his "experience"(that didn't pertain to his job). Your analogy just doesn't seem to work... and even If I accept it, than doesn't Tadanos ability to pitch negate anything he may have done in the past, much like O'leary's abilty to turn the Vikes into a team who can't stop the arizona carndinals from scoring 13 points in the final 1:30 with a playoff spot on the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 The guy making a sex tape in college isn't any of ESPN's business or anybody's business. There are certain aspects of personal life that need to be kept from the scutinous media spotlight. Now, if he pulled a Ray Carruth and killed his girlfriend so he wouldn't have to pay child support then I could see all the hoopla over it. Hell, the guy did this in college. I'm sure most MLB players have interesting, to say the least, stories about their exploits in college. The media just needs to go back to what it's best at: covering Michael Jackson and shark attacks. Making a porn video is no longer personal life. How do you consider a porn video personal. I mean if he isn't gay and he made it then I would believe he received some cash for it. That means it was not meant for personal use. It wouldn't be personal if he isn't gay anyway becuase what would he do with it if he isn't gay? I understand your view on personal life, but a porn video is not personal life. If MLB players do have interesting stories about college exploits then they must either be smart enough not to make a tape of it or better at finding a hiding place for the tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Are you defending O'leary now, because he lied about his "experience"(that related to his Job) to get a job. And Tadano, lied about his "experience"(that didn't pertain to his job). Your analogy just doesn't seem to work... and even If I accept it, than doesn't Tadanos ability to pitch negate anything he may have done in the past, much like O'leary's abilty to turn the Vikes into a team who can't stop the arizona carndinals from scoring 13 points in the final 1:30 with a playoff spot on the line. I think you are taking statements about 2 different questions and trying to combine them to make it say what you want it to say. I think O'Leary lying has nothing to do with costing ND wins. I agree with what ND did and I wouldn't have hired him. I wouldn't have hired him where he has a job now and I wouldn't have hired him at Minnesota. I never said Tadano doesn't have the right to pitch. Did I? I don't think so. I never said that O'Leary didn't have the right to coach. Did I? I don't think so. I was giving an analogy between the two to prove that both are on their resumes whether they like it or not. That is all that you should read into it. If you don't understand that then I am sorry. I will try to come up with a better analogy for you next time. I am not asking you to accept my opinion. I am not telling you which way to believe. I am just stating my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. If you need further help to know where I am coming from then I can do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 The point is the valid debate of whether something done off the field and in private life should get someone blackballed from the game in their home country and/or be seen as a scandal in this country. We all know the scandalous aspect of the story is not the appearance in a porn video, but the appearance in a gay porn video. Charlie Sheen, Pam Anderson, Paris Hilton, et al have either suffered minor negative consequences from their taped sexcapades, or (in the Hilton case) have actually propelled their careers through them. As a society, though, we generally see the taboo sexcapade as far more scandalous. For that matter, we (at least men) also see the two-guy scenario as somehow being much more unsettling than the two-girl scenario. How each of us reacts to something like this tells us, for better or worse, where the limits of our tolerance lie and where our prejudices begin. If the rules of the Japanese baseball league say that anyone appearing in ANY adult film will be excluded from baseball, then the decision to formally ban someone follows as logical. If blackballing the guy is a gut reaction by a homophobic institution to his participating in a homosexual act, then it is an act of prejudice and intolerance. Here, were letting him compete, which is good. But all of our different reactions to the incident reflect our positions on sexual orientation and the morality baggage that comes with it. Two different people can say "Why are we even talking about this?" and can mean two vastly different things. For some, it means, 'why is this even an issue and who the hell cares about the private goings-on of this person. For others, it means 'why are you even bringing this discussion into the light of day because I find it repulsive (or at the least, not my cup of tea).' To the people in the latter group, the contents of the video have not been described, the video is not being displayed, and no one in this thread is offering graphic portrayals of anything you might find objectionable. It's perfectly fine that this is not a pursuit of the straight population. But if this guy has been penalized based on a legal but non-normative sex act, it is discriminatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 But if this guy has been penalized based on a legal but non-normative sex act, it is discriminatory. Here, here! Let us all resume our missionary only sex. So let it be written, so let it be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Here, here! Let us all resume our missionary only sex. So let it be written, so let it be done. Im not sure what you are trying to say. Are you approving gay sex? You would be in favor of everyone being gay? It would be the end of the human race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Im not sure what you are trying to say. Are you approving gay sex? You would be in favor of everyone being gay? It would be the end of the human race. this is now going in a BMR direction. I suggest that others who can, close this. I am staying out of that final decision, that is my suggestion. We have had enough of this s*** through the years and have paid a high price. Let is happen again and let the responsibiliity lie elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Im not sure what you are trying to say. Are you approving gay sex? You would be in favor of everyone being gay? It would be the end of the human race. My personal stance on the issue would be love who you love--but do it safely, monogomously, faithfully and in the way that you would like to be loved. Love is a personal choice--one that I'm not willing to make for everyone. And, I'm out of this thread. Good advice CW--as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 My personal stance on the issue would be love who you love--but do it safely, monogomously, faithfully and in the way that you would like to be loved. Love is a personal choice--one that I'm not willing to make for everyone. And, I'm out of this thread. Good advice CW--as always. Are you saying sex is about love? Damn, I missed that memo. I also don't think porn videos of any kind are a good example of love, but if you say so...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Im not sure what you are trying to say. Are you approving gay sex? You would be in favor of everyone being gay? It would be the end of the human race. She's saying that what he does in his life is his business and it's not yours. If you disapprove of non-procreational sex then please, condemn all couples that cannot have children due to medical problems. Or elderly couples that fall in love but are past menopause. Or couples that do not want children. If you are going to assert the false premise that she wants everyone to be gay, then you, sir, might want to make an appointment with a proctologist so they can find your head. I don't hear you railing against Sylvester Stallone for making pornography films. Is that because you have a double standard about sex or you're just a homophobe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 She's saying that what he does in his life is his business and it's not yours. If you disapprove of non-procreational sex then please, condemn all couples that cannot have children due to medical problems. Or elderly couples that fall in love but are past menopause. Or couples that do not want children. If you are going to assert the false premise that she wants everyone to be gay, then you, sir, might want to make an appointment with a proctologist so they can find your head. I don't hear you railing against Sylvester Stallone for making pornography films. Is that because you have a double standard about sex or you're just a homophobe? Thanks Sideshow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 She's saying that what he does in his life is his business and it's not yours. If you disapprove of non-procreational sex then please, condemn all couples that cannot have children due to medical problems. Or elderly couples that fall in love but are past menopause. Or couples that do not want children. If you are going to assert the false premise that she wants everyone to be gay, then you, sir, might want to make an appointment with a proctologist so they can find your head. I don't hear you railing against Sylvester Stallone for making pornography films. Is that because you have a double standard about sex or you're just a homophobe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Here, here! Let us all resume our missionary only sex. So let it be written, so let it be done. i hope you are kidding missonary sex would get so boring after awhile, you need to change up the positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.