I don't think he is unbiased at all, Christ he writes more articles about Wyoming than the Cats! Pissing match aside he is huge tool shed one the most arrogant people I have ever met.BDizzle said:MooUBaby said:Maybe we did, I personally think he is a complete jackass!BDizzle said:MooUBaby said:You must not follow your grizzles to close then. Rachac is the biggest griz homer reporter in the state. I teed it up for you boys now hit it!
Haha. You guys were all lining up ready to give him handjobs over on bobcatnation after his positive writeups on Ash and the team.
You must know him personally. As a reporter, I think he is pretty fair to both sides. As a patron of downtown, I think he is a tool.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Rachac tweets Jordan Johnson is expelled
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
tourist said:
His job is a reporter, He thinks he god, and griz fans think he is president of the MSU Alumni Association.
grizatwork said:
HA! :lol:
Rachac is the primary sports writer (perhaps even editor? I'm too lazy to look) for the Billings Gazette.
MooUBaby said:
http://www.bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=27457
And on another thread about Rachac praising the cats, you gave him props. You two are best friends and you know it.
MooUBaby said:You must not follow your grizzles to close then. Rachac is the biggest griz homer reporter in the state. I teed it up for you boys now hit it!tourist said:
Okay...
You must not have followed spelling class too close. Or English. Or any other, by the way that your posts read. I know you'll probably take this as a compliment, but you're becoming just a liiiiiiiiiittle too much like that ol' Delta Bravo 2506 for comfort. I am officially on you. :thumb:
CFallsGriz said:MooUBaby said:You must not follow your grizzles to close then. Rachac is the biggest griz homer reporter in the state. I teed it up for you boys now hit it!tourist said:
Okay...
You must not have followed spelling class too close. Or English. Or any other, by the way that your posts read. I know you'll probably take this as a compliment, but you're becoming just a liiiiiiiiiittle too much like that ol' Delta Bravo 2506 for comfort. I am officially on you. :thumb:
Is that a rape joke?
mcg said:
Here's another way of looking at the issue:
The basic assumption of the legal system is that there is one party in a dispute who is guilty and 100% responsible for the crime, and another party who is totally innocent. While in some cases the responsibility is clear, in most cases the situation is more complex.
The following is an attempt to classify victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or affect situations. These categories also judge the degree of guilt or responsibility, ranging from total innocence/no guilt, to 100% responsibility /total guilt.
1. Non guilty- innocent victim: This category includes victims who do not share the responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.
Examples:
~Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.
~Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by complete strangers.
-Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
-Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
-Victims of random or rampage shooting.
-Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.
-Victims of corporate greed, such as those perpetuated by corporations who sell genetically modified foods which cause cancer, or corrupt banking practices, which scheme people of their savings or homes.
2. Victims With Minor Guilt: This category includes victims who with some thought, planning, awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized the harm to themselves. They 'could or should have known better.'
Examples:
-Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
-Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established and it is no longer a surprise)
-Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that has the potential to be dangerous).
-Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.
3. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators: This category includes victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.
Examples:
-Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been clearly established that the partner is an addict).
-A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
-Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
-Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual, or double suicide.
4. Victims who are slightly more guilty than the offender. This category includes victims who are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category #5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the damage than is the victim.
Examples:
-An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility shared between the couple).
-Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
-Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
-Citizens who collude by passivity in their country's atrocious acts and get hurt by other countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi regime and got killed by the allies army attacks)
5. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization: This category includes victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.
Examples:
-Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.
-Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
-People who smoke and get lung cancer.
-Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full responsibility)
These categories represent an attempt to differentiate among many situations of victimhood. They comprise a controversial, inconclusive, and incomplete grid to determine guilt or responsibility. Demographic, cultural, and personal variables, while not accounted for in the above categories, are nevertheless crucial for the assessment of guilt and responsibility. When evaluating the degree of responsibility, the following parameters must be also included: ethnicity (minorities are more disposed to victimization than those in the majority), gender (women are more disposed to victimization than men), socio-economic status (poor vs. rich), physical attributes (less attractive, weak vs. more attractive, strong), mental status (mentally ill, dysfunctional vs. healthy, functional), familial background (abused, neglected vs. loved, nurtured), cultural values (cultures that promote violence vs. those that promote harmony).
A great many words and a lot of thought to simply say it's not an issue that is he's at fault/she's a victim or vice versa. Or to say that young men should not be held responsible nor should young women. I think that is what has made these and similar discussions so difficult.
BDizzle said:CFallsGriz said:MooUBaby said:You must not follow your grizzles to close then. Rachac is the biggest griz homer reporter in the state. I teed it up for you boys now hit it!tourist said:
Okay...
You must not have followed spelling class too close. Or English. Or any other, by the way that your posts read. I know you'll probably take this as a compliment, but you're becoming just a liiiiiiiiiittle too much like that ol' Delta Bravo 2506 for comfort. I am officially on you. :thumb:
Is that a rape joke?
No.
Unless of course you're in prison.
CFallsGriz said:BDizzle said:CFallsGriz said:MooUBaby said:You must not follow your grizzles to close then. Rachac is the biggest griz homer reporter in the state. I teed it up for you boys now hit it!
Okay...
You must not have followed spelling class too close. Or English. Or any other, by the way that your posts read. I know you'll probably take this as a compliment, but you're becoming just a liiiiiiiiiittle too much like that ol' Delta Bravo 2506 for comfort. I am officially on you. :thumb:
Is that a rape joke?
No.
Unless of course you're in prison.
So it's not a joke? Unless you are in prison? They do have computers in prison so maybe it is a joke? Or are you really on him? Which might get you in prison unless he likes that sort of thing. But even if he does like it he may accuse you of sexual assault because he is a cat fan and you are a Griz fan. Now I'm just all sorts of confused.
So its confirmed....you are an AG1 clone. :thumb:
I don't think so gangsta. :thumb:
What are you, MooU's wife?
Done with you, psycho.
What are you, MooU's wife?
Done with you, psycho.
