skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 20, 2011 6:33pm
Oh, I forgot you own those kids. Feel free to paste the article, ( I believe a 5 parter), here.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
Feb 20, 2011 7:25pm
skank;684893 wrote:Massillons combine isn't even Massillons combine, it's sponsored by Nike, and is held at a location. It is also to showcase HS kids for college, NOT to showcase their talents for prospective PAROCHIAL HIGH SCHOOL coaches. Furthermore, I've talked about the PD article on these "talent shows", many times, if you want to read more about them, YOU look it up.
So if a parochial school gets a corporate sponser and brings in kids from all over the country, it would be ok for them to host a combine?
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 20, 2011 7:57pm
Al Bundy;685174 wrote:So if a parochial school gets a corporate sponser and brings in kids from all over the country, it would be ok for them to host a combine?
Sure, why not? See, the only problem is you have to let them out if they want, and you cant offer them "scholarships". This aint Hotel California where they can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
Feb 20, 2011 11:18pm
Why would anyone mess around with "scholarships"? It's easier to just offer "jobs" to their parents.skank;685225 wrote:Sure, why not? See, the only problem is you have to let them out if they want, and you cant offer them "scholarships". This aint Hotel California where they can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.
G
genghis dong
Posts: 391
Feb 21, 2011 4:05am
skank;685082 wrote:Oh, I forgot you own those kids. Feel free to paste the article, ( I believe a 5 parter), here.
No you own them right?
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 21, 2011 12:18pm
skank;685082 wrote:Oh, I forgot you own those kids. Feel free to paste the article, ( I believe a 5 parter), here.
genghis dong;685595 wrote:No you own them right?
Bingo dong-man! Why do I always hear the argument that the private schools "are stealing our kids!" when it comes to a kid leaving a public grade school for a private high school?
And the private school supporters are the ones accused of talking out of both sides of their mouth. SMH.
D
Dean Wormer
Posts: 333
Feb 21, 2011 2:25pm
But it's OK to have open enrollment where the kid doesn't even need a "scholarship". He just comes to Massillon on some other school's tax dollars. It doesn't sound so good when you tell it like it is, does it?skank;685225 wrote:Sure, why not? See, the only problem is you have to let them out if they want, and you cant offer them "scholarships". This aint Hotel California where they can check out any time they like, but they can never leave.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 21, 2011 8:29pm
Dean Wormer;686002 wrote:But it's OK to have open enrollment where the kid doesn't even need a "scholarship". He just comes to Massillon on some other school's tax dollars. It doesn't sound so good when you tell it like it is, does it?
I haven't seen anybody in your little parochial playground tell it like it is yet.
D
Dean Wormer
Posts: 333
Feb 22, 2011 12:36pm
Just answer the question. Why is it "RECRUITING" when some kid transfers to a parochial school but when an open enrollment district gets kids from God knows where it's alright. You try to change the subject anytime the table is turned.skank;686535 wrote:I haven't seen anybody in your little parochial playground tell it like it is yet.
As far as the "combine" in Cleveland goes I have said this before and maybe it didn't sink in so I will try again. If what they did was wrong even someone who is blinded by hatred like you would have notified the OHSAA and put a stop to it. If holding a "combine" for PAROCHIAL school kids by a PAROCHIAL high school is wrong then screw the OHSAA.
A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
Feb 22, 2011 2:56pm
There is one set of rules for Massillon and another set of rules for everyone else. Skank's combine argument is one of the best examples of this. He has no problem with Massillon hosting a combine that brings in kids from different states http://rise.espn.go.com/football/events/2011/02/NIKE-SPARQ-Combine-Ohio.aspx , but he has a problem with catholic schools looking at catholic school kids.Dean Wormer;687226 wrote:Just answer the question. Why is it "RECRUITING" when some kid transfers to a parochial school but when an open enrollment district gets kids from God knows where it's alright. You try to change the subject anytime the table is turned.
As far as the "combine" in Cleveland goes I have said this before and maybe it didn't sink in so I will try again. If what they did was wrong even someone who is blinded by hatred like you would have notified the OHSAA and put a stop to it. If holding a "combine" for PAROCHIAL school kids by a PAROCHIAL high school is wrong then screw the OHSAA.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 22, 2011 5:57pm
Al Bundy;687374 wrote:There is one set of rules for Massillon and another set of rules for everyone else. Skank's combine argument is one of the best examples of this. He has no problem with Massillon hosting a combine that brings in kids from different states http://rise.espn.go.com/football/events/2011/02/NIKE-SPARQ-Combine-Ohio.aspx , but he has a problem with catholic schools looking at catholic school kids.
Yes, you are correct, there ARE one set of rules for publics and another for parochials. Are you THAT slow? How does Massillon gain from that combine? The combine is for kids to aquire a SPARQ score for the colleges to look at. The one in Cleveland and the one in Youngstown, (Don't act like there isn't one), is for coaches to examine possible recruits.
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 22, 2011 7:20pm
Dean Wormer;687226 wrote:Just answer the question. Why is it "RECRUITING" when some kid transfers to a parochial school but when an open enrollment district gets kids from God knows where it's alright. You try to change the subject anytime the table is turned.
As far as the "combine" in Cleveland goes I have said this before and maybe it didn't sink in so I will try again. If what they did was wrong even someone who is blinded by hatred like you would have notified the OHSAA and put a stop to it. If holding a "combine" for PAROCHIAL school kids by a PAROCHIAL high school is wrong then screw the OHSAA.
skank;687534 wrote:Yes, you are correct, there ARE one set of rules for publics and another for parochials. Are you THAT slow? How does Massillon gain from that combine? The combine is for kids to aquire a SPARQ score for the colleges to look at. The one in Cleveland and the one in Youngstown, (Don't act like there isn't one), is for coaches to examine possible recruits.
Way to ignore Dean's question again skank.
Why is it recruiting if a kid decides he wants to go to a parochial school after starting in a public school? But if a kid goes from a public school to an open enrollment public school, that is not recruiting in your eyes?
Perfect example, Maurice Clarett lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. He left Fitch and went to Harding. There was no complaints from anyone about it. But had he lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. And then left and went to Mooney...people would have said that Mooney recruited him.
Just give it up already skank. You keep sounding more and more like thinthick with every post.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Feb 23, 2011 12:14pm
sherm03;687640 wrote:You keep sounding more and more like thinthick
Read the rules! Personal attacks are not allowed!
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 4:14pm
If personal attacks aren't allowed, looks like I'm gonna be the only one on this thread.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 4:30pm
Anyway, I just assumed he was complimenting thinthick.
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 23, 2011 5:02pm
skank;688966 wrote:If personal attacks aren't allowed, looks like I'm gonna be the only one on this thread.
skank;688988 wrote:Anyway, I just assumed he was complimenting thinthick.
Good job avoiding the question again...
You must be a politician.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 6:30pm
sherm03;687640 wrote:Way to ignore Dean's question again skank.
Why is it recruiting if a kid decides he wants to go to a parochial school after starting in a public school? But if a kid goes from a public school to an open enrollment public school, that is not recruiting in your eyes?
Perfect example, Maurice Clarett lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. He left Fitch and went to Harding. There was no complaints from anyone about it. But had he lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. And then left and went to Mooney...people would have said that Mooney recruited him.
Just give it up already skank. You keep sounding more and more like thinthick with every post.
In Claretts freshman year, he started the first 4 games for Fitch before being injured and missing at least a couple of games. Before the injury, he had rushed for 469 yards on 61 carries, and had 6 TD's, he was also leading the SVC in all purpose yards at 180 a game, AS A FRESHMAN, (what he did after the injury I'm not sure), So you're telling me that there were NO complaints from anyone? I bet some people from Austintown would beg to differ.
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 23, 2011 8:13pm
skank;689132 wrote:In Claretts freshman year, he started the first 4 games for Fitch before being injured and missing at least a couple of games. Before the injury, he had rushed for 469 yards on 61 carries, and had 6 TD's, he was also leading the SVC in all purpose yards at 180 a game, AS A FRESHMAN, (what he did after the injury I'm not sure), So you're telling me that there were NO complaints from anyone? I bet some people from Austintown would beg to differ.
I'm sure there were complaints from Austintown. But there wasn't outcry from everyone else. There wasn't a widespread branding of Harding as cheaters and recruiters. But if MoC had come to Mooney instead of Harding, every person in the area (and most people around the state) would have said that Mooney cheated and recruited him and blah blah blah.
Again, way to avoid the question. Why is it OK for a kid to transfer to an open enrollment school, but you don't feel that it's OK for a kid to transfer to a parochial school?
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 8:51pm
sherm03;689265 wrote:I'm sure there were complaints from Austintown. But there wasn't outcry from everyone else. There wasn't a widespread branding of Harding as cheaters and recruiters. But if MoC had come to Mooney instead of Harding, every person in the area (and most people around the state) would have said that Mooney cheated and recruited him and blah blah blah.
Again, way to avoid the question. Why is it OK for a kid to transfer to an open enrollment school, but you don't feel that it's OK for a kid to transfer to a parochial school?
With good reason I'm sure.
Let me answer your question with a few questions. Let's take St. V, (during the LBJ era), for example, do you know the backround of most of those kids? Do you know how they ended up at St. V? I mean, was it just a coincidence that most of those kids grew up together and all ended up with the opportunity to get a good education at a parochial school? Was it a coincidence that they were all pretty darn good basketball players? Did their parent(s), grandparents or gaurdians suddenly come up with tuition? How could these inner city kids afford tuition at a private school?
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 8:53pm
sherm03;687640 wrote:Way to ignore Dean's question again skank.
Why is it recruiting if a kid decides he wants to go to a parochial school after starting in a public school? But if a kid goes from a public school to an open enrollment public school, that is not recruiting in your eyes?
Perfect example, Maurice Clarett lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. He left Fitch and went to Harding. There was no complaints from anyone about it. But had he lived in Youngstown and started at Fitch. And then left and went to Mooney...people would have said that Mooney recruited him.
Just give it up already skank. You keep sounding more and more like thinthick with every post.
Here you say there were no complaints "from anyone".
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 8:54pm
sherm03;689265 wrote:I'm sure there were complaints from Austintown. But there wasn't outcry from everyone else. There wasn't a widespread branding of Harding as cheaters and recruiters. But if MoC had come to Mooney instead of Harding, every person in the area (and most people around the state) would have said that Mooney cheated and recruited him and blah blah blah.
Again, way to avoid the question. Why is it OK for a kid to transfer to an open enrollment school, but you don't feel that it's OK for a kid to transfer to a parochial school?
Yet HERE you say there were complaints from Austintown?
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 23, 2011 9:01pm
skank;689310 wrote:With good reason I'm sure.
Let me answer your question with a few questions. Let's take St. V, (during the LBJ era), for example, do you know the backround of most of those kids? Do you know how they ended up at St. V? I mean, was it just a coincidence that most of those kids grew up together and all ended up with the opportunity to get a good education at a parochial school? Was it a coincidence that they were all pretty darn good basketball players? Did their parent(s), grandparents or gaurdians suddenly come up with tuition? How could these inner city kids afford tuition at a private school?
skank;689318 wrote:Here you say there were no complaints "from anyone".
skank;689320 wrote:Yet HERE you say there were complaints from Austintown?
Again...way to dance around the question. You don't have a problem with kids transferring to an open enrollment school. But you cry foul and say that it is only because of recruiting when a kid transfers to a parochial school.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 9:07pm
sherm03;689334 wrote:Again...way to dance around the question. You don't have a problem with kids transferring to an open enrollment school. But you cry foul and say that it is only because of recruiting when a kid transfers to a parochial school.
YOU were caught in....Let's just call it a minor exageration....And I'M the politician? You know as well as I do that if those kids all showed up at Buchtel or any other public school, there would STILL be an investigation going on.
skank
Posts: 6,543
Feb 23, 2011 9:09pm
sherm03;689334 wrote:Again...way to dance around the question. You don't have a problem with kids transferring to an open enrollment school. But you cry foul and say that it is only because of recruiting when a kid transfers to a parochial school.
My problem is when a whole SLEW of kids "transfer" to a parochial school.
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Feb 23, 2011 9:24pm
skank;689348 wrote:YOU were caught in....Let's just call it a minor exageration....And I'M the politician? You know as well as I do that if those kids all showed up at Buchtel or any other public school, there would STILL be an investigation going on.
skank;689352 wrote:My problem is when a whole SLEW of kids "transfer" to a parochial school.
See...even when you try to beat around a legitimate question you try to get a little shot in at the parochials. I've never seen you put those quotes around transfer when talking about a kid transferring to an open enrollment school.
I thought thinthick quit posting on this thread. But it looks like he's just stolen skank's password and started posting using the same MO: when someone corners you with a tough question, you just don't answer it.