Judex

On a serious note, it seems to me that the best arguments regarding this situation have been the ones that differentiate between volleyball, as a competitive team sport, and cheerleading/drill team as purely noncompetitive extra-curricular activities. Perhaps there should be a rule that says if you play volleyball, you can't participate in the other ones that conflict. Or at the very least there should be a hierarchy such that when there is a conflict, the team sport should prevail and there not be a choice so as not to hurt the other members of the team that is forced to forfeit. Someone suggested that Hooks as AD should do something. Since there is apparently no rule on the subject, it doesn't seem fair to suggest that he can do anything about this instance, nor would it be fair to punish the girls or their parents that made this choice. If anything, Hooks would seem to be in a position to initiate whatever proceeding would decide whether to adopt such a rule so that this situation doesn't happen in the future. I don't mind so much the hating on WO-S - greatness inspires jealousy and envy. I just wish some of the haters would have the guts to admit it

lame no need, we have the internets. you can even copy and paste from thems. maybe if you did a little research you would have come up with something wittier and more applicable

hey i have done my part. posts were long and i really did try to spit in a couple of eyes

why what difference would that make? - hey look weed, there's something grammatical for you to play with

as much as i get tired of band geeks whining about football programs getting preference it is THIS kind of tripe that feeds their rationale. your analogy is bad - are the football players in your hypothetical also on the cheerleading squad? nope. that would be a season-long conflict wouldnt it? or wait, they could cheer between plays right? you may hold volleyball in higher esteem than cheerleading or drill team, but then you probably didnt participate in those activities did you? I have to agree with one thing about your post. That is.....it seems you have received a good education. I am surprised you got away with instructing one of your coaches. Informing or notifying them would be a more preferred method. Anyway you were doing quite well until you chose to write paragraph to too two. You may have underestimated in your charges or accusations that they also might be well educated. Just an observation. Main Entry: in·struct Pronunciation: \in-ˈstrəkt\ Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin instructus, past participle of instruere, from in- + struere to build — more at structure Date: 15th century 1 : to give knowledge to 2 : to provide with authoritative information or advice 3 : to give an order or command to : direct Seeing as how it was my choice and therefore within my power to decide whether I would participate in one, both, or neither of those activities, I fail to see how using instruct to describe the manner in which I informed them of the circumstances was a poor choice of verbiage. As to your critique of the second paragraph: what does me dropping capitalization (which actually occurred in 1) and using numerals instead of spelling out numbers (also started in 1) have to do with homonyms? I certainly didn't erroneously interchange any. Was this your feeble attempt to look like you gots smartzes?

Amazing. Anyone who says that the size and general controversy contained in this thread has nothing to do with it happening at WO-S is being disingenuous at best. I have seen some stretched rationalizations here that could be analyzed for hours, but the silliest has to be remarks along the lines that these students should be punished for choosing one extra-curricular activity over another. Not one activity listed in this entire morass is vital to an education and they all count equally for phys ed. At that point, you all need to seal your pieholes. If this was the end of the football season bleeding over into basketball would you all be yapping about it? NO. It is not your place to decide what is more important to the individual student who signed up for more than one extra-curricular activity. I personally participated in 2 year round activities that clashed with each other regularly and although it thoroughly pissed off one of my coaches, i instructed them that one was going to win out over the other and that they could either deal with it and have my talents for most of the time or not at all. apparently some schools have dealt with this situation by forcing a choice between 2 potentially clashing activities. WO-S didnt do that. get over it. there are at least 2 people in this thread that are here for no other reason than to jump on WO-S' neck at any opportunity. maybe some of you lack the introspection to realize it, but not all of you are blind. some are just liars. find something else to moan about.

We cannot post video's because according to our super mod GoStangs it is a copyright infringement. : post on youtube and link it here.

Loser has to learn the dance that the other's cheerleaders do with that team's fight song and perform said dance at the next game with those cheerleaders - performance to be filmed and posted here for all to see. Of course the loser must also be appropriately attired for it

Whoa, whoa, whoa now, skip. Don't make me go back to some threads before the season started and pull some old posts with "some" WOS fans stating just that fact. ya know, i finally wish Silsbee would just win a game or two so you would have something else to do instead of obsessing over WO-S threads and stirring the pot. you are such a homer for your team. why can't you temper it when other people wear their rose shades?

My objective observation is that baddog is a spiteful "teenager like" adult who is still pissing and moaning over an assessment made about his team 3 weeks ago. That he will scout threads that don't even concern his team because the stinger of reality is painfully evident that the assessment was accurate after each time his team plays. I also know that he spends much time trying to come up with his quirky little posts to make himself seem like something other than what he REALLY is, but his underlying tone is embarassingly evident and he doesn't even realize it. I think he TRULY feels he is speaking for all of Bulldog fans in his posts, but in reality, most Bulldog fans wish he would just shut the heck up. He repeatedly accuses me of whining, homerism, and denouncing other teams, but has yet to provide any proof of his accusations (because they don't exist). How is that? I can come up with more if I need to, I just thought I would go easy to start and bring in the really hard stuff as back up... I think that is a pretty fair assessment. I speak for myself and no one else. You like to rally the troops with fewer than 5 posts. You were also the one who went to the Nederland board and copy/pasted a thread where they were discussing the loss to WOS. You called them whiners and posted it on your board. How childish is that? What a putz. I don't try and make myself appear to be any more than I am. That's just your way of lessening my argument. It wasn't your assessment, it was your condescending tone for the umpteenth time. AAW, there are plenty of homers around crying their eyes out. As for the tree, I'm hiking my leg on that one! lol, and i was chastized for calling this guy a retard : i guess overstating the obvious is a double no-no around here ;D

Q-baby!!! ahhhh, i can't stand it- i'll bite. what????

BUT, Nederland's QB got hurt and they had 7, count em, 7 turnovers!!!! The Bulldogs played really well in spite of those things . . .

ok, i was being hyperbolic when i called you a retard, but maybe you DO have some sort of learning disability. i am going to try and condense this and i think it can be done with the post i am responding to: You just tried to make the point that there can be no rebuttal without it being considered crying. Think on this: you were NOT making a rebuttal. your comments in the Vidor, LC-M, Ned thread did not apply. You were NOT being called a crybaby for saying that losing your QB and turning over the ball impacted that game. it's a given that those things impact a team's chances. if you had posted that in the "WO-S vs. Ned" update thread, and talked about how well you played in spite of those things (along with a slew of other Ned fans that already pointed out those things) it would have been no big deal. Instead, you came in a thread that was analyzing your team generally, not on that given night. Gas' opinion is that Ned is slower and smaller overall than past teams and that will affect how the season goes for Ned. Gas' posit: Nederland is smaller and slower, and therefore they will have a harder time winning District. Your rebuttal: But our quarterback got hurt and we had a bunch of turnovers against WO-S. Does that make a lick of sense to you?

What the heck are you talking about? And why is a Nederlander getting involved in a talk about WOS and Kville anyway? Are you still whinning about my opinion about Nederland (which was requested)? After last night, it sure as heck hasn't changed. ... and before you start a fight you can't win, you may want to bring some quotes with you made by me... Hey pal, how about this for a quote. I can get on any freakin thread I please. If you don't like other fans on here, stay on the WOS board. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about either. Whining is whining....plain and simple. "Hey pal", you still haven't told me where I'm whinning. At least I can take someone being objective about my team, and I often agree with what they have to say... Something you can't seem to muster... It's been nearly a week and you are still lerking around acting pissy... GET OVER IT!!! And while your throwing your little hissy fit, I never said you couldn't go to any thread you want, just asking what interest you have in WOS/Kville. Obviously, you have no other interest beside being a drama queen. Drama queen...hissy fit?....ha ha. I thought you'd come up with something better than that. I'm not still fretting about a game that happened over a week ago. Way to spin it though. The thing is, you made an assessment of my team. I countered with the fact that we turned the ball over 7 times and lost our QB. You and others claimed I was whining about the loss. Now you and others have spoken about penalties and ''playing bad'' ( that's a good one BTW) as to why K'ville played you so close. Shouldn't I call that excuses or whining as you like to say? You can't have it both ways, and I didn't appreciate it being called whining. It was an assessment just like yours. I have kinfolks from K'ville...old school. Actually, it's lurking and whining (sp) wow, really?? you really have to have this explained for you? ok , here goes: 1. The thread you are referring to was one in which an outside person solicited WO-S opinions concerning the three teams they had faced, Vidor, LC-M, and Ned - seeking a general comparison. NOT a single game analysis of why who won or lost. 2. Gas gave his analysis that Ned seems smaller on the line and slower at skill positions than in the past. While WO-S is generally faster anyway, the difference was even more obvious this year. 3. You came in and started crying about said analysis and making excuses for why you lost THAT particular game, a la the whole "i thought we played well considering 7 turnovers, lost QB, yadda." 4. You have missed the point - utterly and completely. With or without that QB and with or without those turnovers, it is someones solicited opinion that you are just generally a step or two behind where you have been in the past and therefore will not fair as well this year as in the past. It is not an opinion of how well you played WO-S or why you lost that game, it is a generic analysis of your team. 5. What Gas said was he knew some Ned fans would get their feelings hurt about that analysis and all you are doing with your sour grapes is proving him right. Go back and read it. He was being objective. You are being a crybaby - my words, not his . . .

i have never seen a group of people so happy to lose a game

how'd they get Andy from The Office on board with all his lameness?

i have never missed Gary Stelly so much . . .

really? seriously? is there a coach in north american football on any level that calls off the hounds in the first half of a game? if so, why??? further, the only reason your statement could have any merit at all, is if anyone on planet earth believed that the reason the WO-S coaches did it was to make some sort of statement by running up the score on Orangefield. does anyone really believe that? come on, what does WO-S have to prove? and of all teams why would it be Orangefield?? they are our closest neighbors and we have NEVER had a conflict with them - EVER. if this were M-LC or maybe even Bridge City, you would still be wrong, but there's enough sour grapes there to support the allegation and let you people make yourselves feel better i guess. has it ever occurred to you that in games, teams are frequently confronted with the situation of trying to manage the clock and score before a half runs out? have you considered that that situation varies significantly from regular game situations? have you considered that the playoffs start next week and that clock management can be very tricky, especially in high school and that it is helpful to a team to practice it in a game situation anytime they get a chance? did you think at all before you posted?

tvc, I respectfully disagree: 1. It was not a rule - that much is admitted by the person who enforced the action, in her own words. It was a discretionary action. She made a judgment on a fluid set of circumstances and issued a command. And as this debate has developed we see the problem. If it had been a bright line rule - the only issue to talk about would be whether or not they had shirts removed. Instead, we are now hearing a discussion of complaints of profanity and a change in attitude and tone on this year's version of the scrubs. Frequently authority figures issue commands for various reasons, sometimes misguided and improperly motivated. We prefer bright line rules because that helps us avoid these abuses of discretion - we don't have to consider motive, just the facts as to whether or not someone actually broke a rule. 2. Breaking rules as a means of challenging them is as old as rules themselves. It's the hallmark of our form of government and its creation. It is exactly what we mean when we talk about being free in this country. We believe in free expression. We peacefully demonstrate. We engage in social disobedience. It's how we test the merit of the rules. Incidentally, we frequently have to have someone break rules when testing them on constitutional grounds. For a higher Court to even consider an issue, it must be ripe - you must have a test case. If there is no dispute, the point is moot. 3. As a practical matter, were these kids to challenge this dictate by other means, the football season would probably be over before they could get anywhere. This was actually the quickest way to raise the issue and the most effective way for it to garner attention.

Sure there is a rule. A school official walked up and told the students to cover up. They have that authority on their property. The school officials can go as far as having offenders arrested for trespassing if they fail to leave when asked. I have seen that in person. I don't see a problem with no shirts and think the principal is being too strict but when told to comply or leave, the students made their choice. How much of a rule do you need? "Lokey said there is no school policy against shirtless fans at football games, so it's a subjective call." This is stupid. The school administrator herself admits that this is not an explicit rule, it is discretionary. In my view it is a prime example of an abuse of that discretion. If what these students are doing could possibly be construed as profane or even mildly offensive - even to the other side - there might be some small argument to be made for making a rule or exercising this type of discretion. None of that is present here. With some of the outfits that cheerleaders and drill teams wear - I cannot imagine how male students with body paint - a common practice in sporting events at every level - can be viewed as even marginally inappropriate. What's next - requiring full body swimsuits at high school swim meets? Gawd forbid someone see a man's nipple. As to not complying: these students took the only measure at their disposal. They disagreed with a stupid judgment call and refused to comply with it, thus drawing attention to the problem. I only hope that someone in a position of power at Silsbee pulls their head out of their nether regions and reverses this silly situation. This type of school spirit is awesome and I salute these kids from Silsbee. Truly sad

Sorry but that is not a true statement! I am a former player and now a fan, and if my memory serves me well the very first time that we played them the score was 12-6 I believe it was the 96' season! Once again though I hope we stomp KVILLE in the ground so they can shut up and quit this fake we are your rivals thing NOT!!!!!!!!!! actually only 4 of 6 were shutouts over the Eagles. (87s hard work is actually linked on this site so anyone coulda looked this up.) 1988: 24-0 1989: 47-9 1996: 12-6 1997: 30-0 1998: 10-0 1999: 18-0 Mustangs over Wildcats BIG, as usual.

i havent been able to get it to buffer from KOGT. anyone have any luck listening to it?