Vikings Message Board.Com

Cliff wrote:I do agree that it belongs in the College Football & NFL draft section. This isn't Vikings related.

So I've moved it.

Thank you, Cliff! You're my new hero.

Mothman wrote:
What are you implying?

That what really probably bothers people most is..the other stuff, the social issues discussed. Which, that, is understandable. The reason I say that is, I see other topics and discussions related to the Vikings *very little* and no one says much about it...and I, oftentimes, see topics get very, very off topic and there are very little complaints there, too. I think the bigger issue, for some, is the back and forth bickering about social issues...not about "...this belonging in another section." And, that, I can understand.

It's all easily accessible but it shouldn't be treated as interchangeable or there's no reason to even have separate sections. I've been around long enough to remember when and why the board was set up that way and I'm sorry if it bothers you that I'd actually like to see that structure respected and, for lack of a better word, enforced.

Again, understandable. And that doesn't "bother" me. I agree that it probably should have been part of another section from the start. However, I think there was a better, more productive way to express that. That's all I'm saying.

In the end, it got moved, and I agree with it. So, here we are.

chicagopurple wrote:I think having Muslim players who completely fast during an important time in the season is far more likely to impact your team then having a gay player who actually runs a very low risk of carrying any blood borne disease. We survived Islam in the locker room, so a gay player will be just fine.

Interesting. I never would have thought of that (the foolish stereotypes towards Muslims at that time). In the end, I think it takes a strong organization and veteran locker room to deal with the tough issues. As far as the Vikings, I don't think they are ready for this sort of thing, especially considering our whole Priefer/Kluwe deal. The Vikings did come out with support for Sam, almost immediately, but I think that will be about the extent of it.

I listened to a lot on this, and most say things should be fine. Those were mostly mature men talking, though. However, most agreed that this would be tough to handle for a young team without that veteran leadership in the locker room. A veteran locker room? Yeah, I don't think we are there yet, especially not with a few more of our veteran leaders (likely) leaving this offseason. I am curious to see how it all plays out. I don't think it will be that big of a deal. I trust that some team with strong ownership, management, coaches, and veteran leaders, etc. will take this on without a problem.

Funkytown wrote:That what really probably bothers people most is..the other stuff, the social issues discussed. Which, that, is understandable. The reason I say that is, I see other topics and discussions related to the Vikings *very little* and no one says much about it...and I, oftentimes, see topics get very, very off topic and there are very little complaints there, too. I think the bigger issue, for some, is the back and forth bickering about social issues...not about "...this belonging in another section." And, that, I can understand.

I don't see any point in crying "wolf" every time a thread goes off-topic but when a thread involves a player who isn't even peripherally-related to the Vikings at this point and the conversation veers heavily into social issues and gets a lot of posts, I feel it's worth raising the point that it belongs elsewhere. I have no objection to people discussing social issues, although it typically leads to personal insults, warnings or locked threads. Moving a thread like this to another section can help diffuse some of the bickering by taking it out of the most popular forum on the board.

Again, understandable. And that doesn't "bother" me. I agree that it probably should have been part of another section from the start. However, I think there was a better, more productive way to express that. That's all I'm saying.

Duly noted but I feel compelled to point out that I did express it in a nice way ("Can we please stay on topic and discuss this subject purely as it relates to football?" seems polite and courteous to me) before subsequently expressing my aggravation by posting a few emoticons which, while admittedly unproductive, hardly seems worth the attention you've chosen to give it in a thread where people are making some outlandish and potentially very offensive claims.

Please understand, I've been here a long time, almost since the board was founded, and at one point, I saw it devolve into an angry mess when discussion of socio-political subject matter got completely out of hand. Policies were established to prevent that sort of thing from happening again and I really don't want to see it repeated. That's why I asked people to stay on topic and that's why I expressed frustration when I saw the discussion veering far afield from football.

fiestavike wrote: I don't think that's fair. One doesn't have to accept homosexuality in order to be loving to fellow human beings, including those who are gay.

How do you think it makes someone feel if they're gay. "I love you, but ugh...I don't accept you". That doesn't make a lot of sense and seems pretty hurtful to me. That's like, hey NextQuestion... "I love you, but I don't accept jews".

Cliff wrote: On the other hand, experienced players might know enough to not make a big deal about it even if they don't agree while younger players might make a bigger deal out of it ... so I suppose I could see that.

However, overall I don't think it will be a very big issue regardless. It's only "news" now because of how long it took for someone to be the first openly gay active NFL player.

I agree, I think it will fade rather quickly once the season starts.

I also understand that the younger players might be more accepting of it, in general, but I think what they were implying is what you shared above. Veteran players would probably know how to handle it better, even if they disagreed. I think they were putting more emphasis on maturity and respect more so than true acceptance. Hopefully Sam gets both!

NextQuestion wrote: Says the guy who inserted "logic" by burping up a WWE storyline

The logic was not the WWE storyline itself but the guy in question, Darren Young. Obviously, you have a hard time comprehending what I'm trying to say as well so we should just end this convo.

No matter what I say, you tune out the things you don't wanna hear. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. So I am done discussing this topic with you. If you think I'm homophobic because I don't accept homosexuality. So be it. You're not going to do anything about it so we might as well drop this discussion. You have your views and I have mine.

Why is it a strange idea of love?

Please people, don't compare being an alcoholic to being homosexual. Being an alcoholic is a disease and requires help. Homosexuality is not that.

King James - You can have your views, but you do realize you come off as totally uninformed and uneducated i.e. when you don't understand the definition of "bigot" is. You and Valhalla compared bestiality with homosexual intercourse. The things you say are offensive and you're apart of a group that's repressing others. You side with a guy like Priefer (judging by your profile pic) who says "nuke the gays"

NextQuestion wrote:You side with a guy like Priefer (judging by your profile pic) who says "nuke the gays"

Allegedly.

dead_poet wrote: Allegedly.

Gaht! The great Mike Priefer who's done so much with hardly any talent!

dead_poet wrote: Allegedly.

Right! Mike Priefer could have been referencing an Electric Six song.

Cliff wrote: Right! Mike Priefer could have been referencing an Electric Six song.

Or he said "nuke 'em" he was referencing some delicious brownies his wife made for him that had gone cold. He was probably about to share with Kluwe, too, as an act of peace. Things get misinterpreted all the time.

"Is your brownie hot enough yet, Mike?"

"Nope ... Nuke it 'til it glows."

NextQuestion wrote:Why is it a strange idea of love?

I'm feeling a strange kind of love for Kluwe right about now because of your avatar.

Valhalla wrote:Looks like the Vikings and coach Zimmer sided with Priefer if Priefer was named on the coaching staff for the new year.

The things people come up with.

You sure? Didn't they already say that it doesn't guarantee anything? Basically, they are still in "wait and see" mode? They probably just didn't want to get rid of him until the investigation was finished. I wish they would have gone the other route with that, but I do see how it makes the Vikings look more honest and fair, and that is exactly what they need and want right now.