farmteam

Is New Trier in the playoffs/have they been decent? Shows how much I follow it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=320120084 I thought about bringing that up, but I didn't want to ruin my post-win mood. It hurts less since we pounded Minny at their place though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 29, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) Its 140 characters max. There really isn't time for disclaimers. Very true.

Tonight's Justified set up a lot of good looking stuff. Quarles could go nuts when s*** gets real.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 10:14 PM) Too bad the tournament isn't played there. IU goes out in the first round IMO. That's what I'm afraid of, since this team has absolutely zero postseason experience. In fact, none of them have even won a Big Ten Tournament game. I figure we'll get a 5 seed (though I could see anywhere from 4-6), so hopefully that gives us a win in the first game, and maybe we can play really well and make it to the Sweet 16. That'd be a fantastic season, but I'm not holding my breath for that.

Ok Big Ten refs, don't be typical and start calling everything in the second half when you let them play in the first. I'll take a 41-27 halftime lead, though.

Oh wow this is awesome. Jimmy Fallon doing a great Eddie Vedder impression in this "Jeremy (Lin)" parody song. http://www.barstoolsports.com/nyc/super-pa...remy-lin-cover/

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) Been back on that "Them Crooked Vultures" for a while now. That album has all levels of awesome not yet reported in recent music. They're absolutely incredible live. Best show I've ever seen.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 02:08 AM) Supposedly the Flyers did a lot of shady stuff. In what way?

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 22, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) That is a real term that the kids use these days? Is it the equivelant of going steady? Yeah, I'd say it's been in my parlance since 2006/7. "Going steady" probably is the best equivalent.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 08:54 PM) I just dont know a lot of reasonable people who think corporations deserve the same rights as people. When you type the words you just cant believe its real. In a lot of instances it makes plenty of sense to make a legal fiction treating corporations as people. That doesn't mean it has to be extended to ALL instances though. Not saying you disagreed with that Soxbadger, just my succinct thoughts on the subject.

OT! Let's go Northwestern. Shon Morris is bothering me less...I think he's starting to grow on me. Also, Jordan Morgan really annoys me, and I'm not sure why. Whenever I watch a Michigan game, even if it's not against IU, he really gets on my nerves.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 21, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) Yeah its odd, basically 2 of the Justices that you would assume would uphold MT's ruling are the ones saying that the Fed Supreme should look at it. My guess is they think this time theyll win. Your second line is why I think it's NOT odd they'd want to look at it -- they think they'll be able to affirm this decision, and open the door for a straight up challenge to Citizens United. That would all be really quick, though. I mean, Citizens United is from what, 2010? Say my guess above is correct -- that would put a challenge to Citizens United in front of SCOUTS in about 2016, less than a decade after that case. That would be an unheard of about-face for the Court to take, wouldn't it? I can't think of anything else that's been reversed so quickly. The closest I can think of is between Bowers and Lawrence, and even that waited another decade (17 years).

I completely forgot it was Lent, even after I remembered it was Fat Tuesday.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:48 AM) I first heard of Dawes from this thread a few years back, and I'm grateful to whoever it was that posted about them. I'm in love with their second album, and the track "If I Needed Someone" is terrific. Thanks for this. I checked them out and I like it quite a bit. Reminds me a lot of The Band, especially in the vocals on some songs (like "That Western Skyline").

Hey IU, stop sucking. No energy at all today.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 08:00 PM) I don't know how I can make this more clear...the mother did not go to the school and have the news "accidentally" broken to her. She was not talking to a teacher and the teacher let it slip. The coaches threatened the student that they would tell her mother. I'm not sure how much more clear of an implication there can be than that. Then they followed through with the threat and went OUT OF THEIR WAY to find the mother at her residence to tell her this. There is no compelling anyone to do anything. There is a difference between keeping a secret and actively seeking to expose a private concern to someone that the subject does not wish to know. Again, I think that's covered by some other tort. Probably not defamation, but some form of harassment, I'd think. But not invasion of privacy.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) You know you guys could just totally Skype naked instead of arguing with each other in every thread. On the other hand, , for giving me such a terrible image in my head.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:38 AM) I'm honestly tempted to masturbate to non-pornographic material for the first time since grade school. She was already near the top of my "most attractive celebrities" list; this might move her to numero uno.

I knew trying to address points in advance in a long-winded post was a bad idea. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) So ultimately what your saying is that because of the nature of her sexuality, she is not allowed to be a normal human teenager and STILL not tell this to her parents? I was trying to address this point ahead of time with: QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) I agree that gays should have the same public right to reasonably expressing their sexuality as straight people do. I also agree that there isn't the worry of "disclosure" for a straight person expressing their sexuality publicly that there is for homosexuals (who are not out yet). Without that worry, straight people are allowed much greater use of that freedom. However, let us not forget the multitude of factors that go into deciding whether to come out entails (or I assume; I'm straight and thus didn't have to make that decision, but it certainly seems like there would be many considerations into it?), and this invasion of privacy is only of those factors (even if a heavily weighted factor). And this is where the crux of our disagreement comes up, I think: I consider that factor to be something considered when making the decision to come out, and once that decision is made, the individual has accepted those consequences, while you think this particular factor (invasion of privacy) should still be protected anyway (again, let me know if I'm putting words in you're mouth). I really don't intend for that to sound callous; I still certainly maintain that any intentional or malicious disclosure is probably a tort of some kind. I just mean that "coming out," at its core, centers around deciding to take this (controversial? touchy? stigmatized? I can't think of the right word) characteristic public, and doing so involves accepting the purely "accidental disclosures" I discussed at the beginning might occur. Your point about the restriction of expression is a good one, and it's hard to make consistent with relevant laws. The above paragraph was my attempt at it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) Well I don't understand why you're arguing accidental disclosure because this is clearly not an accidental disclosure. Not only was this an intentional disclosure, but it was preceded by a threat to do the same. QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:16 PM) However, it seems you and I have moved to arguing about invasion of privacy in the more general sense of accidental disclosure (at least, by both your's and my posts, it appears we have a disagreement over this basic point, so that should probably be resolved before moving onto the malicious disclosures, and we'd probably agree pretty quickly at that point). Perhaps I was mistaken in my guess, but that's why I tried to clarify it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Yes, I am. I don't think a result of her expressing her sexuality in school should mean she loses any right to keep that information private. Since her fellow students know, does that mean they can tell her future employer? The recruiting officer for the armed forces? Where does it stop? This is what I was getting at with intentional/malicious disclosures. That's different from what I was talking about (accidental disclosures). If they're telling a future employer, recruiting officer, etc. with the intent to harm her candidacy (or, possibly, with the actual knowledge that it could harm her candidacy), she would have legal recourse against the person who made the disclosure. It probably wouldn't be invasion of privacy; more likely something along the lines of tortious interference of a contract (if she'd already signed an employment agreement), or some form of harassment. Actually, as for that last scenario, I'm not sure if that's completely accurate under today's law; but hooray for normative arguments.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) Plus, let's say there was a concern about the ages and the legal aspect. Are we suggesting that telling the mom her minor daughter is dating an adult male is ok, but telling the mom her minor daughter is dating an adult woman is wrong? That's not what I'm suggesting. I'd say both instances are OK because of a different issue -- the parent has a right to know if their minor child is engaging in sexual activity with an adult. Sexual orientation is irrelevant, in terms of the question you asked.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) So you're telling me that she cannot express her sexuality in ANY manner at school, unless she is willing to stand by as someone from the school contacts her mother and has a discussion about it? I just can't agree with this notion. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, she can't express her sexuality in any manner in school and still reasonably expect her mother won't find out. QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) I don't think this accurate. The question seems to revolve around whether the character of the information was something of a private nature or not. Whether or not there are people aware of her sexuality is not the question, but rather, whether her sexuality is a private concern of hers and whether or not it was her constitutional right to protect that information from being disclosed against her wishes. Her sexuality is a private concern of hers and it's her constitutional right to protect that information from being disclosed against her wishes. But where you say "disclosed against her wishes" applies to any particular person or group the person does not want that information disclosed to, no matter who else it has already been disclosed to, I say that her disclosing it publicly, ie coming out, means it's impossible (in the eyes of the law) for anyone to disclose the information against her wishes, because she's already made the information public. Essentially, you're dividing the "public" into spheres, and that isn't the case.