Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Runninwiththedogs

  • Birthday 10/27/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Louis Park, MN
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3,065 profile views
  1. Upperclassmen players live in the dorms? Specifically, juniors? I can't respond to Sicatoka without saying stuff that's not public knowledge. However, the freshmen weren't carried in by no one. The article states they were carried in by other older players. Players were already there when the 911 call was made. Unless you're implying that those players left and new players arrived. If they weren't there from the start, they wouldn't know to be there unless "summoned" or unless they lived in the dorms and heard the noise. I guess there are many sophomores and occasional juniors that live on campus but it seems highly unlikely that all of these "older players" do. Let's not be silly and act like these guys just instinctively knew there was a problem and showed up after the police were called. Anyway, I'm still looking askance at parts of the situation but ultimately I don't really care beyond my relief no one was seriously injured or died.
  2. I don't want to betray any confidences, so, going strictly from the article: "Older team members were carrying in obviously intoxicated freshmen." "Garfield said, 'a few of the hockey members told me they have it taken care of and I should just go back to doing what I was doing.'" "Derek Forbort, a junior, and other older members of the team gathered in the hallway to find out what was happening." Captains are suspended as well as 3 other members of the team who are "older." Who would the "older team members" be if not the guys suspended? So then, why them and not Forbs? TNT, I don't believe the article implies that Forbs et al showed up later after being summoned. If you know from another source he wasn't there/carrying the guys in, then ok, gotcha. I didn't think of this til later, but considering the state the guys who weren't taken to the hospital were in, it's kind of scary to think what shape Caggiula was in.
  3. I meant Forbort. How was he not suspended?
  4. It sounds like Chyzyk's girlfriend was there to keep an eye on at least Bryn since someone told me that dorm is a men's only dorm so she didn't just happen to be there. Good for her, if true. How does the guy quoted in the police report avoid a suspension? I don't want to pile on or anything but that is weird to me.
  5. TAMPONS SOAKED IN BOOZE? What??? I don't even think I want to know. I read through the article and obviously we don't know any more than what was reported, and that's fine. But it does state Chyzyk was unresponsive and had puke on his shirt. Granted, it doesn't say when he threw up, but if he had thrown up while unconscious that is extremely dangerous. The RA showed good judgement. Sometimes it's too easy to think, oh, he'll sleep it off, just roll him on his side, etc. I certainly hope that someone was already planning on staying and keeping an eye on the guys, even if they didn't think it was worth calling 911.
  6. Let's put this in the dictionary next to the definition of irony.
  7. I'm not going though, I will be getting ready for work. We did just watch your video though.
  8. I will be out of bed! But I have to work at 11:45. I'm only going to one of the games, the Thursday early game. I do need to see you though.
  9. Will there be a handshake line?
  10. A friend of mine, who is a UND fan and student, tweeted back to him that he might as well @-reply quite a few of his teammates on his comments about men. It could very well affect the team off the ice. It affected his draft position, which at the time I thought was ridiculous, but I hadn't seen any of this side of him at the time. Iramurphy, I couldn't quote what you wrote back to me because you didn't quote me and I'm too lazy to fix it. Anyway, feminism is exhausting, but it's necessary, and I don't think this dialogue was a waste of time, nor do I think attempting to open a dialogue with Rocco himself was a waste of time even though it was fruitless. It's sad that the only two major reactions thus far are "He's gay!" (which, BTW, is not an insult per se, but people seem to think it is and use it pejoratively) or "Yeah! Right on!" (for reasons I've already gone through.) I don't agree with people who want to make fun of him just to make fun of him. It makes the message I'm trying to send get lost along the way. Of course I didn't help myself because I gave up and starting making silly comments, but meh. Hammer, I get what you're saying with the Bible quotations. It's not a very good read from a feminist point of view. I was referring to the overall message, though. This is certainly an interesting conversation and if anyone does want to chat further we should probably do it via direct message or email, because this thread could end up longer than the "former players" thread. I just hope, and I think you'll all agree with me, that this is the last of his outbursts in this manner, because if it becomes a regular thing, it will be a huge distraction and will cause a Chilly-style schism in the locker room.
  11. Yes, Ben Blood is on his way to my house to hurt me. Just because someone stands up for his/her beliefs, doesn't mean those beliefs are not harmful to others. His view of women and their role on earth is harmful to women. I see nothing wrong with his love of God and his tweets in praise of Jesus. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between Christian beliefs and the misogynistic crap he spouted the other night, then I'm afraid we can't have a conversation. I can respect someone who stands true to their love and faith in Jesus Christ. I can neither respect nor defend Rocco's sexism. Christianity and sexism are not synonymous. There are plenty of believers in Christ who would never, ever act like men were superior to and in charge of women. It doesn't take guts at all to say something on Twitter, then disappear and avoid any sort of dialogue.
  12. Some might consider me part of that whole Wall Street machine, considering what my profession is, but that's a discussion for another day. Let's try to stay within the scope of the topic and the context in which Rocco used the word. There's enough here without going into a discussion of semantics.
  13. I still disagree, because he was speaking specifically to men. Also, I see nothing inherently wrong with lust, so I'd still disagree even if he was addressing both genders. Rape, incest, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, pedophilia, all those things I do see a problem with. No one put men in charge of the earth. Evolution created sexual reproduction and two distinct sexes in species that reproduce in that way. Let's stick to facts. This is the first time I've seen anything he's said as offensive. It's a pretty sharp turn from the tone of his previous tweets, which were silly little things about school and roommates mixed in with motivational quotations and devotional messages. No problem there. I felt it necessary to speak up (directly to him, in fact) about my objection to his chauvinistic world view.
  14. What about the next part? What about the God put US in charge part? For me, that's the worst part of what he says. Again, if people want to engage in consensual sex, then who exactly needs blame? Of course I have a problem with men seeing women solely as sex objects, and women only finding value in themselves if men find them attractive. However, there is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, and there's nothing wrong with trying to appear appealing to the opposite (or same) sex. As for how women are treated in strict Islamic communities (as well as MANY MANY other cultures throughout the world), it makes me feel ill.
  • Create New...