|
|
Post by beaverdude on Jun 8, 2017 14:21:51 GMT -8
This is a duty he will carry with him the rest of his life. I have a friend who, on his 18th birthday, was given the gift of sex by his 16 year old girlfriend. He was a senior in HS, she was a junior (14 month difference in age). Her parents "caught" them when she told them she was pregnant. The system ran its course and he had to register as a sex offender. When she turned 18 they married (against her families wishes) and are still happily married several years (and children) later. Oregon law requires that he register and report for the rest of his life. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,010 
|
Post by bill82 on Jun 8, 2017 14:43:31 GMT -8
This duty that you speak of - where does this end? If Luke goes to a minor league team, do you report this again to his new community? Do you exercise your duty by running a regular column and call out every local perp on the register every time they take a new job, move to a new community? Or do you just exercise your duty when someone has a chance to be successful? I don't see duty here, I see opportunists not thinking and writing a shallow piece. Let's also not ignore the fact that "it came to light" because Danny ran a criminal background check on Luke. As the old saying goes, when you go looking for a fight, you usually find one. I was involved once in a profile piece on a homeless man trying to put his life together. He was shining shoes on a street corner, but the police kept stopping him because he did not have a business permit. My office helped him get the permit and the paper wanted to run a feel-good story. The reporter ran a background check on the man and found criminal convictions that in her words were "pretty bad stuff." She cancelled the article because she felt she could not write it without mentioning the crimes. That was her duty and it made sense to me. I guess she never thought it her duty to run a story about a bureaucrat who failed to do a background check, even though that was not required of a business permit. I'm sure readers would have looked past that it was not required, assumed I was derelict in my duties, and then boycotted the guy's shoeshine stand. I'm glad her sense of duty was completely the opposite of that which was exercised by the Oregonian. |
|
|
|
Post by Beavcat on Jun 8, 2017 15:07:59 GMT -8
Looks like JT will get the Friday Start with Rass on Sat. If the Oregonian hasn't blown up the entire weekend, I still like our chances. JT, keeping the Ball Down is dang near un-hittable. Who knows, Luke may still be in the mix. Good grief....Danny was doing a puff piece on Luke for the playoffs...this came to light and he had a duty to report it. Quit blaming the Oregonian "... he had a duty to report it."
A duty to whom exactly? Who is this serving by reporting it? Certainly not the victim; not the family of the victim. I'm sure this just dredges up a whole lot of pain. The community? I don't think so, this young man is obviously not a threat to anyone. I'll tell you who this serves; it serves the Oregonian. The only party involved here that benefits from this is the sales department of the Oregonian who can now claim even more clicks. Did they have the right to report it? You bet, and I would go buy a gun today and die defending their right to report it; but that doesn't make it right.
The fact they had to write a whole other article defending their publication of this tells me all I need to know about how "right" this was. Total BS and I'm sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jun 9, 2017 9:45:48 GMT -8
It's hard to believe what has transpired since I started this thread, referencing only the jump in the level of competition this weekend vs what we had been dealing with. Now I am not sure anyone is ready. But we deal with life and the only actions and feelings that are under our control are our own. Every person involved in this on the periphery will have to decide where they are and act accordingly. Blessings to all, and play ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Jun 9, 2017 11:43:03 GMT -8
. I'm glad her sense of duty was completely the opposite of that which was exercised by the Oregonian. If the homeless guy had been 11-1 with a 0.75 ERA for the best team in NCAA history, I would bet she would've run with the story. Is it fair? No. But it is the way it works. |
|
|
|
Post by orangesocks on Jun 9, 2017 12:50:59 GMT -8
Are we ready? I expect to see a very determined Beavers squad, if what transpired in the 2007 postseason is any indication.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 9, 2017 13:24:30 GMT -8
Good grief....Danny was doing a puff piece on Luke for the playoffs...this came to light and he had a duty to report it. Quit blaming the Oregonian "... he had a duty to report it."
A duty to whom exactly? Who is this serving by reporting it? Certainly not the victim; not the family of the victim. I'm sure this just dredges up a whole lot of pain. The community? I don't think so, this young man is obviously not a threat to anyone. I'll tell you who this serves; it serves the Oregonian. The only party involved here that benefits from this is the sales department of the Oregonian who can now claim even more clicks. Did they have the right to report it? You bet, and I would go buy a gun today and die defending their right to report it; but that doesn't make it right.
The fact they had to write a whole other article defending their publication of this tells me all I need to know about how "right" this was. Total BS and I'm sick to my stomach.
Reading between the lines, I believe that the victim's family wanted the Oregonian to run this piece. Oregon State did not want it out there. The Oregonian wrote three positive pieces on Heimlich. Journalistic integrity required them to print this article, so they did. |
|
|
|
Post by rollotomasi on Jun 9, 2017 13:55:10 GMT -8
|
|
