He’s been begging for more attention here so let’s give it to him. After a bit more than a year of refusing “direct contact,” HelenaIR commenter dolphind3 has made direct contact with a series of rants and the usually accusations.
This is the guy who, in March 2015, accused me of a crime and tried to enlist a posse to go to law enforcement to have me fired from my job. That, of course, was a big fail.
In his latest recruitment attempt he says this:
dolphind3 May 20, 2016 7:24pm
Oh look another attack by the Cow Dung Student. To all of the fellow commenters, from here on out we need to take a stance against the commenter that is now formerly known as atheist educator. From now on we need to refer to this person as the Cow Dung Student. This make perfect sense as this person doesn’t educate at all but merely flings dung and hopes that it sticks. I hope that everyone supports this from here on out.
This all started because I questioned whether we should continue to have athletics in our schools and I suggested to another commenter that they should quit disclosing so much personal information if they wanted to retain their anonymity. This guy is one of those sports fans who has raises that type of fandom to the fervor of a religion and, as such, sees any criticism as heretical and it needs to be stomped out. His “stomping” is done by deleting comments.
So, with my letters to the editor complaining about the comment deletions seeing them restored, it’s pretty obvious that dolphind3 was told to knock it off because he has now addressed his dissatisfaction to me directly. Here’s a taste:
dolphind3 May 20, 2016 10:02am
So nice of you to come on here and play the victim when you are the one attacking. In short there are a few people that call you out for your attacks on others and your weal Liberal views and hatred of others and things you just don’t like. We get it, you don’t like religion, most weak minded people are like that. It doesn’t give you the right to attack others like you do. You have taken this to such an unhealthy extreme using bullying tactics like starting your little blog to try and shame those that don’t agree with you. I can’t wait till this site makes us all post with our real identities because you are such a little coward. You just attack others behind your little keyboard and the things you say to dietz makes you a piece of dung. You are the Embracer of ignorance and you are flaming mad that things are starting to go south for you on this site, just like they have on every other site you have been on. What do all of these things have in common? None of us were on those other sites you were banned from. All of these things have you in common. The lowly net troll.
dolphind3 May 19, 2016 8:42pm
Well said Bidnessman, this person has serious mental issues when you look at the years that they have been at this and the documentation of the attacks and bullying that they do. Even bragging when they have been banned from commenting online for other papers around the state. We in Helena can thank the other papers for not tolerating this joke of a commenter because like a rat on a sinking ship it followed the dry path to this place and continued its trolling ways here. Its use of Liberal Logic and lack of facts make the posts laughable at best and result in nothing but attacks on others. A very poor excuse for a commenter.
dolphind3 May 21, 2016 4:23pm
Here we have the typical anti religion vitriol being posted by the cow dung student. Most atheists live their life afraid. They are afraid that god is real. Judging by the insecurities always displayed by cow dung student that is a safe bet here. Loser with a capital L.
dolphind3 May 22, 2016 12:15am
Easy? Not at all. You are the one that is afraid and need to come on here and troll others to feel good about yourself. I never talk about religion because I don’t force it on others, you on the other hand feel the need to try and force your opinions on others and you bully them to get it done. That makes you a piece of dung and beyond pathetic.
Here I sum up his problem:
dolphind3 said “…you on the other hand feel the need to try and force your opinions on others and you bully them to get it done.”
How does “force” or “bully” anyone in an anonymous online forum?
I suggest that this virtual world is relatively new to you and, as such, you bring expectations of behavior from the non-virtual world where you can use your gender, physical presence, and supposed status in the community to get your way. That doesn’t translate into this world and is one of its strengths, which, of course, make you feel weak in the face of those who will not kowtow to your demands.
You see, your “type” is nothing new in these worlds. You arrive with your swagger, toss around your tough guy talk, and expect everyone to take you seriously. When that doesn’t happen you try to bring in forces from the outside world (in your case law enforcement) and level demands about anonymity. When that hasn’t the desired impact you go on the rant, becoming the very thing that you hate. Eventually you go nova, that is, you burn out in a flash of self-destructive behavior, name-calling and off-topic posts with increasing irrationality.
In the meantime, those of who have existed in this reality for decades sit by and watch the downward spiral we have seen so many times before.
That you are a rabid sports fan simply verifies the above analysis. You probably get some kind of fake self-esteem boost when “your team” defeats, beats, crushes, or demolishes the opposition, all terms associated with bullies, BTW. You probably even sit in front of a television and and yell, scream, and complain about what you see taking place there and, and this is the really sick part, you probably think you are somehow responsible for their win.
You, likely, use language like this: When “your team” wins, you say “we won.” When it’s a loss, you say “they lost.”
Yes, your type is well-known and pretty simple.
and in his most recent tirade:
dolphind3 May 22, 2016 12:12am
Your self importance is showing. The only thing sour here is you. I have tried to ignore your attacks and I no longer am going to tolerate them. You are the one that lives everyday trolling here and making a blog to push your agenda of bullying. Time to punch the bully in the nose.
Which got this response from me:
dolphind3 said “I have tried to ignore your attacks and I no longer am going to tolerate them.”
Really? So you are going to stop deleting them? My guess is that the editor gave you your last warning for doing so. OUCH! That’s had to have hurt.
You said “Time to punch the bully in the nose.”
Ah, yes, always a resort to the physical, just like any rabid sports fan who finally realize they’ve been bested in the arena of ideas and virtually emasculated.
So, what’s you plan? Enlist others to call me names? What makes you think that will have any impact?
This is an anonymous online forum where ideas reign, not swagging blowhards who are used to pushing their weight around in the real world. Trying generating an original idea and join in.
Having been shown in error on numerous threads of the HelenaIR, the prime purveyor of the ignorant statement, dietz1963, has taken to deleting those comments rather than standing up for himself or, horrors!, admitting he was ever wrong.
On the thread Headline about Gianforte suit was yellow journalism where the letter writer complained about the lack of “responsible journalism,” dietz1963 took the opportunity to hijack the thread and complain about one of his favorite topics:
dietz1963 next comment was also deleted by here is what skooter said
So, you see, instead of blaming his idiocy on “family members,” he just goes back and destroys the evidence. This is why I am thinking of writing a bit of code to automate copying all his comments at regular intervals so the evidence is preserved.
Of course, it really might be his “family members” who are deleting his comments, trying to remove the embarrassment they lay over the whole clan.
And, while I am here, this is my response to his rant about personal responsibility. It pretty much takes his weak statements apart.
As a result of a column posted on the HelenaIR regarding the legalization of drugs, I posted a list of other addictions and wondered if society will take them on next. As a result of my targeting television as a source of brainwashing, one commenter took exception and defended his television watching. When I countered with reference to “research and studies” he blew off the whole field of research “with a grain of salt” opting instead for personal experience as more reliable. I posted a long reply where I took on this issue and covered the flaws in his reasoning. It is, IMO, a good read and, of course, something I have written on extensively in other places. Here’s the transcript:
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 8:06am
Wow, congratulations, Landon. This is, IMO, you first truly well-thought out piece. Well done.
While I fully agree that we look at the model in Portugal (it is well-covered in Michael Moore’s latest movie, “Where to Invade Next”), I do take some exception to your lumping alcohol into the drug problem and wanting it gone. And where is a reference to prescription drug addiction?
The problem is really larger than just drug addiction. People become “addicted” to all kinds of behaviors that have a negative impact of themselves, their families and friends, and society as a whole. Here are a few others:
– tobacco (kills over 400,000 Americans per year and over 16 million are living with smoking-related diseases)
– gambling (and the government is involved with the dealers)
– food (look at what overweight and obese people are costing the nation)
– debt (leads to bankruptcy where creditors get hosed and insufficient retirement planning that will result in an increased demand for “senior services”)
– irrationality (like religion)
– their electronics (driving while using the phone)
– television (5 hours a day of brainwashing)
Will the government take action on these and other addictions? If we look at the concerns expressed in your column and wanted to set priorities, tobacco would be #1 to deal with.
countrydoc May 12, 2016 9:10am
AE well I WAS gonna congratulate you on not trashing a “conservative” op piece but then you just had to add in you irrational religion tripe. just let it go!
dietz1963 May 12, 2016 10:26am
Yea, I saw that swipe doc. The truth is, many former drug and alcohol addicts turned to religion as a way to combat addiction. It works for them so I don’t see it as a problem. Its the age old “anything in excess” or not enough of something is what leads to problems. I for one enjoy television shows, not sure what “brain” washing is involved, its a form of entertainment. Not unlike listening to music, going to a play, going to some sort of a sports event, concerts, spending time on the internet….
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 12:16pm
dietz1963 said “The truth is, many former drug and alcohol addicts turned to religion as a way to combat addiction.”
It reminds me of a comedy routine where a Jesus Freak was telling someone “I used to be all messed up on drugs and now I’m messed up on the Lord.”
You said “I for one enjoy television shows, not sure what “brain” washing is involved, its a form of entertainment.”
An addict always tells us they aren’t really addicted.
The “brainwashing” is, for the most part found in the commercials. Just look at how many people are exposed to in a year. Let’s do the math.
The average American watches 5 hours per day. (source)
The average number of commercials per hour was 15 minutes and 38 seconds in 2013. (source)
15.63 min of commercials per hour X 5 hours per day = 78.15 minutes/day
78.15 minutes/day X 365 days per year = 28,524.75 minutes per year
28,524.75 minutes / 60 = 475.4 hours of commercials per year.
And that is part of the 1,800 hours spent watching in a total year.
If you think that has no impact, then you need to look at the many studies in psychology on the topic. You can even start with my often recommended classic, “The Hidden Persuaders” by Vance Packard. It was written in 1957.
You bring up the prescription drug problem. You said ” Americans like “quick” resolution, whether its to sleep, stay away, lose weight, gain weight, something to counter act depress or counter act being hyper.”
Where was that taught? The boob tube, of course.
This is why I got rid of television many decades ago and raised my children without it. And they turned out just fine.
Aside from the aforementioned negative impacts of the commercials, there is the opportunity cost of 5 hours a day “entertaining” oneself with the same tripe over and over again, for years and years. There is more to life than that.
dietz1963 May 12, 2016 12:41pm
AE, the people doing drugs, legal or otherwise, didn’t get it off the TV. That’s nonsense and honestly, the internet is much worse then TV. On TV when a commercial pops up, I change the channel. On the internet, it doesn’t matter what website is looked at, commercials all over the page. And certain amount of TV is screened as to whats put on their. Particularly when it comes to news reporting. The internet? So much misinformation, misdirection, half truths, lies, photos that are photoshopped, videos that are edited….TV was replaced with a much more effective “brain” washing tool, the internet. Given how long you’ve been on it which is what, since its inception? You substituted TV with something else, your computer. In fact, didn’t you say you’ve commented from a small portable device such as a phone? I believe so. I doubt you’ve ever lived off the grid, or even could. I’ve yet to see you go without a day commenting somewhere.
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 1:44pm
dietz1963 said “On TV when a commercial pops up, I change the channel.”
But we are not talking about you. We are talking about everyone else. Someone is watching, otherwise they wouldn’t pay the hefty sums to run and AND they know they work because they have been running that stuff for decades.
In other words, it IS brainwashing, or, if you prefer, impacting behavior.
You said “Given how long you’ve been on it which is what, since its inception? You substituted TV with something else, your computer. In fact, didn’t you say you’ve commented from a small portable device such as a phone? I believe so. I doubt you’ve ever lived off the grid, or even could. I’ve yet to see you go without a day commenting somewhere.”
Commenting is, or can be, an intellectual, interactive pursuit. And I have been “on it,” not since its inception, but certainly before what most people think of as the Internet, the World Wide Web. I think I started online in the early 80s. But even before that I was using computers, as I do today, primarily for content creating. Programming = Dollars. Early adopters are like early birds and that proverbial worm. Unlike TV, would encourages spending, my computer time makes money.
BTW, you mention “Not unlike listening to music, going to a play, going to some sort of a sports event, concerts, spending time on the internet….”
Yes, those are passive activities. I prefer playing music (a couple instruments), producing a play, playing sports, playing music for others, and creating places on the Internet….
Just my preferences but the issue is that TV has a behavior-changing power that I prefer to avoid.
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 2:15pm
dietz1963, more on TV watching, have you ever looked at all the studies that have been done on the impact of screen time on student grades. It’s a no-brainer, those with less screen time get better grades. Most kids watch 4 hours or more per day. Research indicates it should be no more that one hour.
It that works for kids, I suggest the same would be true for adults. After all, we’ve already seen the study that showed those who watch Fox News know less about current events than those who watch nothing at all.
Aside from the commercials it sells other nasty stuff, like celebrity worship. And reality TV is far from reality. It gives a skewed view of the world. It’s no surprise that Trump has done what he’s done.
dietz1963 May 12, 2016 6:44pm
AE, I take studies and statistics with a grain of salt. Which either one says one day turns out to be the opposite the next day. They used to speak of how video games and music created certain mindsets in individuals, only to turn around and say that was false, then true, then “depends”.
You mention studies on fox news. Who’s studies? Comparing to which news? I research many and, to get the “entire” picture, one does have to reasearch many because each one panders to their audience. I find, for example, CNN to be the flip side of Fox. Anyone thinking the most informed or most intelligent watch CNN need to get their brain examined. Particulairly when it comes to biased news, CNN is by far the most biased of all news networks. Anymore, where does one go to find some real good unbiased news cause many of them are doing copy and pastes of articles, a little word smithing but there are hardly any real independent news articles anymore. To find them on the internet, if one can, spend a few hours using different search engines, maybe. I’ve notices I find stuff through Firefox I don’t through Explorer, search engines vary from bing, to yahoo and google, google being the worse of them all. Then there is other internet avenues such as .de, .uk, .tu, .it…..
dietz1963 May 12, 2016 7:18pm
AE, at the end of the day, you intrege me. You strike me as a person highly intelligent but also, incredibly niave. Books, internet research, thats all fine and dandy but neither put anything in true perspective. Living it, thats an entirely different manner. For example, you have expressed doubt of my military service. How would you know unless you served cause if you did, you’d know. You would be able to ask me questions only a vet would know and understand. I have found, simply in cyberspace, the only ones that do question are those that have not served. Others, they only need to ask a couple questions and, they know. Folks like catspaw, twangs, others that have commented, I know they served just cause how they roll. You could never know unless, you served. Hearing about it doesn’t do it, you actually have to go through basic, tech school, be at first assignments and beyond. Go to dangerous areas which are not always war zones but, contingency ops, humanitarian ops…so many operations it would make your head spin what the US military gets stuck with. And, not all bad, many good. My best ones were the humanitarian missions that far outweigh the bad ones. In my time, there were over 400 “good” ones compared to just a handful of bad ones.
Atheist Educator May 13, 2016 8:57am
dietz1963 said “…I take studies and statistics with a grain of salt. Which either one says one day turns out to be the opposite the next day……You mention studies on fox news. Who’s studies? Comparing to which news?”
You blow off statistics and research. You claim they are unreliable.
Have you ever taken a college level course in research and statistics? Preferably at the graduate level? Are you able to analyze a study, see how they gathered their data and look at what form of statical analyses was applied? Are you able to determine how they controlled for variables?
Apparently not since you “take studies and statistics with a grain of salt.”
I suggest that you find course and take it before you blow off research methods that produce results you don’t agree with. Your “grain of salt” reply is the “killing the messenger” fallacy.
You said “I research many and, to get the “entire” picture, one does have to reasearch many because each one panders to their audience…”
No, that is not how real research is done. What you are doing is purely anecdotal. What was your hypothesis going in? How was the survey and data collection designed to best produce valid results related to the hypothesis? How are you controlling for variables? How large is your survey set? Large enough to produce statistically significant data? What method of analysis did you use? t-test? Kruskal Wallis test Chi-square? Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test? Who reviewed your work?
You see, unless you do all this, you are producing results that lack validity and, as a result, would produce inaccurate conclusions. In other words, only unsupportable opinion. If you take it “proof” of anything, you are deluding yourself. Why, I get to that below.
So, when “studies” and “research” are used to measure the impacts of television watching on students and the public, these above methods are utilized. This is how the scientific method is employed and gets us to truth as close as it is humanly possible to get.
Blowing off hundreds of years of research methodology “with grain of salt” does not make you look good at all and, in fact, removes you from any intelligent conversation. And I am NOT saying that to be insulting, just being honest. When humans work through serious issues and try to ascertain truth, these are the methods we use. When someone comes in and discounts those methods, they will be sidelined since they quite obviously don’t know what they are talking about.
I was presenting information, and research, on the negative impacts of television in a serious way, hoping so some serious discussion on the topic. Really.
What I am suggesting now to you is to get educated on this. To learn how we know things. Particularly how we know things to be true that we haven’t personally experienced, a point you seem to use as your escape clause. Personal experience can be flawed. Yes, flawed. You say you are a vet. Use your GI Bill. School should be free. Take an online class in research methods. It could change your life.
You said “…you have expressed doubt of my military service. How would you know unless you served cause if you did, you’d know. You would be able to ask me questions only a vet would know and understand.”
And you could be asking your neighbor for answers.
The reason I questioned your service is because you use it to establish yourself as an “expert witness” on a topic and have used that position to discount claims made by others. It’s not your service I really question, it’s your methodology. If one holds up a credential to establish themselves in a certain way and we are to accept what they say because of it, then that credential needs to be verified. Otherwise, their claims have no validity. Instead of holding yourself up as expert, provide an outside, verifiable source to support the claim. It’s really that simple and does not involve disclosing personal, unverifiable information. That is how we do things in the online world of true, serious discussions. And, yes, true, serious discussion does take place online. Not necessary here, but certainly other places. In fact, when the Internet was developed, one whole part of it was designed specifically for that purpose and it still exists, although most people have no knowledge of it because they think the whole Internet is what you get to on the web. Noobs.
But I digress, as an example of the above “expert witness” issue, we had a tussle regarding benefits from the VA. I mentioned the ability to receive eye care. You, from your “expert witness” positioned claimed that was not a benefit. Since I know for sure that it is (a friend just got glasses from them), I found the benefit outlined on the VA’s web site, it called your claim of service into question, not just what you know or don’t know about this particular VA benefit.
dietz1963, one good rule of life is “less is more.”
You said “I have found, simply in cyberspace, the only ones that do question are those that have not served.”
There is no way to know that is true because you have no way of verifying who served or not. You are projecting your own beliefs onto others. It’s just like when you questioned CW the other day because his claim of service and his political position don’t align with yours. That was a psychology textbook example of projection. It’s another reason why “personal experience” can be a flawed method of determining true. Cognitive bias is in play here and one needs to be aware and guard against it.
You said “Folks like catspaw, twangs, others that have commented, I know they served just cause how they roll. You could never know unless, you served.”
How they roll?
While I don’t plan to offer any evidence, because it doesn’t really matter, I would surprise you. I have revealed very little personal information about myself and don’t use it back up claims, only to occasionally provide colorful anecdotes to an issue. If we were meeting face to face, it would be different, but in the world of online anonymous commenting, we just do things differently and have as long as I’ve been doing this, from the early 80s.
You said “AE, at the end of the day, you intrege me. You strike me as a person highly intelligent but also, incredibly niave. Books, internet research, thats all fine and dandy but neither put anything in true perspective. Living it, thats an entirely different manner. “
I’ll take the first part as a complement, thank you, but you are incorrect on the “naïve” part. As I explained above, personal experience is limiting and can be impacted by cognitive bias and self-delusion. Over the past 400 years or so, we humans have developed a very trustworthy system for finding truth. You see, before that, personal experience counted for much, but the problem was that there was no way to verify it. Someone said they had a vision and saw God and what are we to make of that? If they are in a position of power, then we’d better go along with it.
But now we have a better and more trustworthy way a “knowing.” It helps to eliminate the biases, the agenda, and errors. Is it 100%? Of course not but its methodology provides checks and balances that help us to get quite close.
BTW, just as an example, on a thread a few months back, MtMadeMan provided a study that he said supported the claim that private schools do a better job of educating students than public schools. Remember that? I showed that his claim was in error because the study itself was flawed. And I didn’t have to do a complete analysis of their methodology, although I did look it at. The study itself, in their conclusion, admitted that the results did not back up their hypothesis and, therefore showed it to be invalid. This made MtMadeMan’s claim invalid as well. All he’s done was read a headline extracted from the study’s abstract and he never read the study itself.
Two things were revealed there. One, MtMadeMan isn’t doing his homework and puts up information he hasn’t read or doesn’t understand. Second, it illustrates why research methods are so trustworthy. That study sought to show that private schools did a better job but their research didn’t support that and they reported that as part of their study. You see? The methodology even reports failures and errors of its own.
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 12:21pm
One..said “Your addictions list came up short by excluding the impetus – GREED. “
I don’t see greed as as addiction but as a trait that can motivate one into certain risky behaviors.
You said “As dietz concluded, education is paramount. “
Of course, but when the average American spends more time in front of the television than they ever will in a classroom, well, there you go. Television is the opiate of the masses.
dietz1963 May 12, 2016 1:38pm
The youngest trained programmed killers in the world, are day in, day out, in a classroom, brainwashed by “educators”.
Atheist Educator May 12, 2016 1:55pm
dietz1963 said “The youngest trained programmed killers in the world, are day in, day out, in a classroom, brainwashed by “educators”.”
So, teachers are responsible for creating killers? Is that what you are saying?
Over on the HelenaIR, Charlie Hull gifted us his monthly LTE, this time with claims about us being a Christian nation, blah, blah, blah. Of course, the comments flowed quite heavily bringing out the usual cast of characters.
Right in the mix was dietz1963 who what getting his rear end handed to him left and right on all the side threads. He made all kinds of spurious claims and was roundly set straight with much glee. However, as he will never admit error, the day drug on and he eventually went back to the bottle to regain his false sense of self-respect.
About 11pm last night he made a couple comments that were prime drunken dietz1963. It was highly reminiscent of his drunk-fest that I documented here: Dolt commenting while drunk
Unfortunately, I didn’t save the complete text of his current comments and by his usual show up time online this morning they’d been deleted.
However, I did comment on them and referred to his content in my reply. You’ll get the gist:
Get it? The guy is really hitting the sauce again to feel better about the pitiful beating he is taking on this thread. He just doesn’t know when to realize that he’s been intellectually outwitted and should just cash in his chips and slither back home. No, he is the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
In my last post here, I wondered whether the Coward of the HelenaIR had been banned from the site since my comments had stopped being deleted after I’d contacted the editor about the problem. Apparently he is back and so are the comment deletions.
In this current round, one of the topics is, again, school sports. They have an issue in Helena with a girls soccer coach as reported here. The first comment on the story was this:
to which I replied
dolphind3 said “This is just parents needing to mind their own.”
What a nonsensical thing to say. It IS parents business to mind the interests of the children.
It took most of the day but that comment was removed even though others took it up and discussed that parents are minding their business when monitoring the activity their kid is in.
I also posted my standard claim that we need to look at removing sports from school and cited The Atlantic story to support that. That comment was also removed.
Over on a different thread, a story about a celebration of Islam in Missoula, we had this comment:
to which I responded with:
“The same goes for the Bible. That book tells me that I will be spending the eternity of the afterlife in a Lake of Fire.
Both books are superstitious nonsense and should be regarded as such. That some Muslims take their book seriously is a good enough reason to make it a national policy to point out the error of superstitious thinking regardless what book it comes from.”
That comment was removed.
Again, I have contacted the editor to report the vandalizing of my comments.
dolphind3 claims he is some big shot in Helena and even has the power of friends in law enforcement who will back him up to “out” the true identity of commenters and have them fired from their jobs or even arrested for what they say in that site. He claimed he was going to use his powers to have me dealt with and, what do you know, I am still here. So, the best this blowhard can muster up is to delete my comments, which I repost or the editor reposts. He’s a pitiful little man who probably lives out his life with sports analogies. In other words, a bore.
What is really so hypocritical about him is that he defends bullying by coaches after he accused me of bullying another commenter. As we know about real bullies, they are the true cowards.
It’s been a few weeks since the tussle at the HelenaIR over my comments regarding school sports. Specifically it was comments I made about bullying and how school sports are part of bullying that we do not see directly addressed. I posted examples of where this is a problem in just wrestling and the raging coward of that site would continuously delete my comments. After playing that game for a while, I contacted the new editor who restored my comments only to have them deleted again. More contacts with the editor took place and it appears that the problem has been resolved.
The coward has been nowhere to be seen in the past week or two. Looks like he may have received quite the spanking. We’ll see. As I stated in an earlier posting, I will endeavor to post my opinion on school athletics and their relationship to bullying in every article on that site where it aligns with the topic. Cowards be damned.
Contact with the HelenaIR’s editor has been made and some of my comments were restored and I was told that the individual was notified of their transgression.
It sort of worked by, just like occurred on another another thread, a few continued to be deleted.
Rest assured coward, I will be commenting on ALL future stories on this topic with the same research. I will also comment on all school-funding stories and argue that money can be saved and academic performance increased if athletics are eliminated. The research is on my side and your pseudo-religious devotion to sports will continue to be blasphemed.