Vikings Message Board.Com

We seem to be getting farther and farther away from the central issue. Kluwe is not a self-serving opportunist and Priefer is not the second coming of the Third Reich. Opinions have become entrenched and those who have placed themselves in the middle are waiting for more information. The speculation here has run rampant, and I fear some things are going to be said that cannot be taken back. I am not about to ask anyone to stop commenting, but I am going to encourage everyone to tread softly until we know more. I happen to dig you all when we talk football and I'd hate to see anyone leave over this.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

PurpleKoolaid wrote: What in the world does race have to do with any of this? Why would race even enter this conversation?

...you seriously don't get it? It's not that hard to connect the dots. Really.

And why do people like you have to name call? Always? Try arguing without it once.

My guess is, you probably wouldn't get along too well with your boy, Priefer, if you find NextQuestion's comments offensive. Just sayin'.

Funny how people are so darn sensitive on a message board (we're all guilty of this at times), but Kluwe is being "too sensitive and overreacting" when he's being taunted at work and his job is being affected. Hmm. Alrighty then.

And Kluwe is on Olbermann live tonight to tell his side of the story to the masses on ESPN 2.

PotGoblin wrote:And Kluwe is on Olbermann live tonight to tell his side of the story to the masses on ESPN 2.

That's the perfect place for him to do it. One loud mouthed to another lol. But then, if it does turn out to be true, it wont be so funny. But I still highly doubt it.

BGM wrote:Kluwe is not a self-serving opportunist

Perhaps.

Or maybe he really does think Priefer ruined his career and contributed to its early end, as he claims. A season of frustration trying out for other teams when he had been under contract with the Vikings may have contributed to more than a little animosity. He was set to make $1.25M dollars in the final year of his contract, so in his mind I'm sure he thinks Priefer cost him at least that much money and possibly millions more from his next contract. He's certainly not making a million dollars a year playing video games and posing for gay magazines.

PotGoblin wrote:And Kluwe is on Olbermann live tonight to tell his side of the story to the masses on ESPN 2.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bh1kghIuh0

NextQuestion wrote: Thank you. Some people, who are uneducated, think being gay is a choice though.

Homosexuality and race are two different to compare. You have to be crazy to think people are just born gay. Race is something that you can't control no matter how much you want to. Being gay is definitely a decision. Sometimes people experiment when they get older. That doesn't mean they were always gay if they did that though. That means they tried something and like it. A black person can act white on the inside but the skin will still be black. You can't compare those two.

King James wrote:You have to be crazy to think people are just born gay. Race is something that you can't control no matter how much you want to. Being gay is definitely a decision. Sometimes people experiment when they get older. That doesn't mean they were always gay if they did that though. That means they tried something and like it. A black person can act white on the inside but the skin will still be black. You can't compare those two.

Easy there, buckaroo. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 03361.html

dead_poet wrote: Easy there, buckaroo. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... 03361.html

Stay on subject, stay on subject. This line of thinking will get this thread locked. Believe me I wanted to answer this, even typed up a response but felt it crossed the line.

Valhalla wrote:Speaking of Locke: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... c/4295725/

So at least per Locke, that looks like a denial.

Locke wouldn't have been in the meeting room when the alleged comment took place.

So, Priefer only said this one time, at some supposed meeting, where only Kluwe knows who was there, and what was said? Gottcha lol. Maybe when it comes down to it, Kluwe will say it was just a dream he had that seemed so real...

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:You would think if Priefer is the bigot Kluwe's made him out to be this woulda happened a lot more than once.

To me it sounds like Priefer was just breaking Kluwe's balls because he was tired of the distraction but his "joke" went a little too far.

I heard Paul Charchian of KFAN express the same theory on a Chicago radio station the other day. It makes sense, in light of the supportive comments players have made and Priefer's own statement.

Mothman wrote: I heard Paul Charchian of KFAN express the same theory on a Chicago radio station the other day. It makes sense, in light of the supportive comments players have made and Priefer's own statement.

Makes sense. But who says it was too far? Sounds like Kluwe got the message. It would be a terrible thing to say if he was at all serious, but if he wasn't then the sky is the limit. I'm sure worse things have been said by many a coach, just without the clueless punter in the audience.

Eli wrote: Makes sense. But who says it was too far? Sounds like Kluwe got the message. It would be a terrible thing to say if he was at all serious, but if he wasn't then the sky is the limit. I'm sure worse things have been said by many a coach, just without the clueless punter in the audience.

At what point do jokes about gays go to far? What is an acceptable joke about gays in the workplace? Or is it acceptable because it's a joke about gays? Or is it acceptable because it a football team?

80 PurplePride 84 wrote:You would think if Priefer is the bigot Kluwe's made him out to be this woulda happened a lot more than once.

To me it sounds like Priefer was just breaking Kluwe's balls because he was tired of the distraction but his "joke" went a little too far.

Am I missing something here? Or am I pulling a Kluwe and "adding to the story"? Without reading it again, the way I remember it is, these comments did happen more than once. But Kluwe didn't ALWAYS have a problem with Priefer and his comments. It wasn't until Kluwe started speaking out and being active about it. Oh, "and being a big distraction".

So, why WOULD Walsh, Locke, Smith, etc. have problems with Priefer? Why would he disrespect them and lump them up with "the gays"? Were they active along with Kluwe? Were they outspoken with their support of the gay community? Were they openly gay? WHY WOULD THE GAY THING COME UP WITH OTHER PEOPLE?!?!? Kluwe, himself, said it wasn't always an issue. Priefer started up with the comments after he knew of Kluwe's feelings and activism on the topic. So, now we should all be shocked and surprised "other players have no problem with Priefer"? That, to me, is common sense. Confused on how people missed all of this. Or, ya know, maybe I'm not remembering the story correctly or "adding to it".

Regardless, as other people have said, joke or not, it's NOT funny. I don't believe it was a joke, though. On what level is that funny? That's only funny to really sick people. And is it really appropriate at a workplace? No. It was said to taunt Kluwe and his views. Real professional. And for the love of all things purple, can coaches please start focusing on football? No wonder we can't win games. We have coaches trying to be "comedians" apparently. Fail.