 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | David wrote: |
Snapchat—if it was, as reported, the medium used—is by its very definition a private service. About as non-public as you can get. Snapchats can only be seen by the individual you send them to and, I believe, autodestruct after 10 seconds or something. It is possible to take a screenshot, however, which seems to be what has happened here. |
A point I was trying to get across yesterday although apparently there is an app that can record snapchat without the other person knowing. |
No App required. Any smartphone can do a screenshot, ie capturing what is on the screen and saving it to a picture file. That's the kryptonite to the premise of snapchat.
Principle is little different to doing Ctrl Alt prt scr to capture a pic of what you see on your computer monitor, except on a smart phone it saves the pic automatically.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | King Monkey wrote: | And again, it IS NOT a PRIVATE matter.
He's put the pictures and words out there himself, he hasn't been secretly filmed or had his phone tapped or anything underhanded like that.
Also, that is one of the most ridiculous hypotheticals I've ever seen!!
Having nude pictures of yourself out in the public sphere off your own hand, whilst propositioning a girl young enough that she still lives with mum whilst your girlfriend's heavily pregnant; pretty repugnant by most people's standards................ picking up the gender of your choice at the nightspot of your choice, maybe giving the sh1ts to a few homophobes.
Yeah, I can see the correlation!! |
Snapchat—if it was, as reported, the medium used—is by its very definition a private service. About as non-public as you can get. Snapchats can only be seen by the individual you send them to and, I believe, autodestruct after 10 seconds or something. It is possible to take a screenshot, however, which seems to be what has happened here.
I know people in their 30s who still live with their parents, so I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything. Apart from some random Bigfooty post by someone who claims to know somebody, we still don't know that she was underage.
I know neither you nor your six foot eight, formerly mulleted alter ego ( ) are fond of hypothetical analogies, but this one's quite valid: it's about "giving the shits to a few homophobes" or "giving the shits to a few of society's moral guardians". I reckon we're talking a similar population there (and dare I say more than a little crossover). We're talking about money, sponsors and public reaction. It's not exactly a quantum leap.
| King Monkey wrote: | Finally, yep, all employers including football clubs are required to treat their employees with respect and dignity.
I couldn't agree with that statement more.
But, David, is that only a one way street??
What to do when that's not reciprocated??........... |
Completely agree that it has to be mutual. By allegedly wagging training, it sounds like Bootsma wasn't upholding his part of the deal. But I don't consider conducting extramarital affairs, sending nude pictures, having a wank, wearing mismatching socks or whatever constitutes an act of disrespect against your employer—even if it is explicitly (and unreasonably) against their code of conduct. Do you usually think of your employer when you send dirty text messages to your lover? I know I don't!  |
I don't necessarily "think" about my employer when engaging in activities I'd prefer them not to know about, but I'm aware of the consequences of not being very discreet.
Sending a snapchat to someone you don't really know all that well is not very discreet is it??
The screenshot function makes snapchat a public forum, whether you like it or not.
The AFL and it's clubs rely on dollars from families and sponsors; whether you like it or not.
People with young daughters but not confined to those with young daughters, think Bootsma's behaviour is disgusting; whether you like it or not.
Sponsors like to be seen to be involved with reputable organisations; whether you like it or not.
Carlton need to display an image of good solid values, as do most organisations that rely on people spending money with them to survive.
Bootsma has smashed these values out of the water.
His position is actually untenable when this latest show of disrespect to his employer is added to the others we've been hearing about.
There is no argument that isn't highly comical to suggest otherwise...........
Geez David, a few "moral guardians" are the only people who support him being moved on?? Really?? Get your head out of the sand mate.
This is a guy bringing shame and scorn to his organisation. Grounds for instant dismissal in most industries.
These guys get warned, and educated, and told, and reminded, and cuddled, and re-educated, and explained, and shown, and educated again, and reminded, that what they do can potentially affect the club in ways that they, and obviously you, don't understand.
You'd be happy for this guy to carry on with this kind of behaviour, if he represented your business??
(And if you say it's not any of your concern what he does in his spare time regardless of whether it's in the public eye or not, then please never open a business where you have to have employees...... for your own financial sake!!)
And nice edit there....................
You are absolutely joking with the Marley Williams thing right??
Almost as absurd as the gay club analogy.
Please tell me you're not that daft.
And you're clearly missing the point of Bootsma representing "Carlton" aren't you?? On purpose I'd suspect.
Please tell me you're not that daft.........
EDIT: spelling of affect.
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | A 15-year-old girl was involved in the first incident on social media app SnapChat. Because of her age, police have not ruled out investigating the matter. |
That doesn't make sense at all in an industry that prides itself on it's players running kids clinics.
It's either BS or the AFL are hypocrites.
Also anyone with a WWCC is mandated to report his involvement with an underage girl. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| KM, Stui, I think we are kindred spirits. If I ever meet you I would like to shout you both a beverage of your choice (within reason ) |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | KM, Stui, I think we are kindred spirits. If I ever meet you I would like to shout you both a beverage of your choice (within reason ) |
We're generally in the Ponsford stand level 1 at a Pies game, the Square leg bar (when it's $£$%^%%$ open  ) has a limited but drinkable selection.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | KM, Stui, I think we are kindred spirits. If I ever meet you I would like to shout you both a beverage of your choice (within reason ) |
We're generally in the Ponsford stand level 1 at a Pies game, the Square leg bar (when it's $£$%^%%$ open ) has a limited but drinkable selection. |
Ponsford, standing, M32.
Might have to give the Square Leg bar a visit at halftime if there's free beer on!! 
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I just had a listen to Alan Jones's radio "discussion" with Malcolm Turnbull and have to say your post bears more than a passing resemblance. Still, I'll do my best to wade through:
| King Monkey wrote: | I don't necessarily "think" about my employer when engaging in activities I'd prefer them not to know about, but I'm aware of the consequences of not being very discreet.
Sending a snapchat to someone you don't really know all that well is not very discreet is it??
The screenshot function makes snapchat a public forum, whether you like it or not. Yes, and the News of the World's phone hacking makes your phone conversations public too. Unbelievable. 
The AFL and it's clubs rely on dollars from families and sponsors; whether you like it or not.
People with young daughters but not confined to those with young daughters, think Bootsma's behaviour is disgusting; whether you like it or not.
Sponsors like to be seen to be involved with reputable organisations; whether you like it or not.
Carlton need to display an image of good solid values, as do most organisations that rely on people spending money with them to survive. No they don't. These "good solid values"—another term for "moral virtue"—are a throwback to religious obsessions of yesteryear. The reality is that it is only the tabloids keeping the dream alive; most people have left this paradigm behind. But I've written enough on that; if you don't want to listen, that's your prerogative.
Bootsma has smashed these values out of the water. By doing something that had nothing whatsoever to do with his club or his status as an employee of it—i.e. a footballer.
His position is actually untenable when this latest show of disrespect to his employer is added to the others we've been hearing about.
There is no argument that isn't highly comical to suggest otherwise........... How about the fact that we've just established that respect or disrespect to his employer had nothing to do with this?
Geez David, a few "moral guardians" are the only people who support him being moved on?? Really?? Get your head out of the sand mate.
This is a guy bringing shame and scorn to his organisation. Grounds for instant dismissal in most industries. In a way that punching someone in the head doesn't? See below. If exchanging nude photographs is the very worst thing you can think of, you need to get out more.
These guys get warned, and educated, and told, and reminded, and cuddled, and re-educated, and explained, and shown, and educated again, and reminded, that what they do can potentially affect the club in ways that they, and obviously you, don't understand. And they wield control over their employees' lives to an extent that they don't understand; at least, not the personal and social ramifications of it.
You'd be happy for this guy to carry on with this kind of behaviour, if he represented your business?? Absolutely none of my business, literally.
(And if you say it's not any of your concern what he does in his spare time regardless of whether it's in the public eye or not, then please never open a business where you have to have employees...... for your own financial sake!!) I've had employees work under me in a business I took a large degree of responsibility for. Never once did I worry that they might not lead good Christian lives or that they might cheat on their partner or write something politically incorrect on the internet. I understood that how good they were at their jobs and how they treated customers was infinitely more important. I suppose I'm just not that much of a control freak.
And nice edit there....................
You are absolutely joking with the Marley Williams thing right??
Almost as absurd as the gay club analogy.
Please tell me you're not that daft. No, and your moralistic hand-wringing in this post has only made that clearer: you actually think exchanging nude pictures is much worse than breaking someone else's jaw. You also have absolutely no ability to handle the most basic analogies. That's pretty daft if you ask me. Lateral thinking is a basic skill, and your rejection of it makes pretty much any discussion ten times harder.
And you're clearly missing the point of Bootsma representing "Carlton" aren't you?? On purpose I'd suspect.
Please tell me you're not that daft......... I meant what I wrote: the concept of "Carlton", as a brand and as a football club, is much, much bigger than a single player. That's the truth, whether you like it or not, and it's why Carlton won't lose a single fan over this and why they didn't lose a single fan over Fevola or Scotland's antics. And, yes, I have the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on hand in case I need it...
EDIT: spelling of affect. |
Also, I'd just like to say that I find the media's treatment of this young guy even more despicable than his club's. What purpose did interviewing that woman serve? Pure sexual shaming at work here—really nasty stuff. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Of course, that might not mean Bootsma shouldn't have been sacked, just that Williams should have been, too? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| King Monkey wrote: | Finally, yep, all employers including football clubs are required to treat their employees with respect and dignity.
I couldn't agree with that statement more.
But, David, is that only a one way street?
The AFL and it's clubs rely on dollars from families and sponsors; whether you like it or not.
People with young daughters but not confined to those with young daughters, think Bootsma's behaviour is disgusting; whether you like it or not.
Sponsors like to be seen to be involved with reputable organisations; whether you like it or not.
Carlton need to display an image of good solid values, as do most organisations that rely on people spending money with them to survive.
Bootsma has smashed these values out of the water.
His position is actually untenable when this latest show of disrespect to his employer is added to the others we've been hearing about.
There is no argument that isn't highly comical to suggest otherwise...........
Geez David, a few "moral guardians" are the only people who support him being moved on?? Really?? Get your head out of the sand mate.
This is a guy bringing shame and scorn to his organisation. Grounds for instant dismissal in most industries.
These guys get warned, and educated, and told, and reminded, and cuddled, and re-educated, and explained, and shown, and educated again, and reminded, that what they do can potentially affect the club in ways that they, and obviously you, don't understand.
. |
In a nutshell.
That last paragraph says it all though, and bootsma, the bombers and Marley are all at fault.
Whilst I'm really glad to see Marley has turned it around, woken up to himself, whatever, I won't argue with an opposition supporter about wether he should be there, cos I get their point.
Bootsma needs to take it on the chin, try and get his act together for maybe another crack at footy if he wants it. But he will have to earn it.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
From big footy,
"The media will really enjoy ruining this young kid.
It is the Aussie way, kick the kid when he is down - then be seen to try and help him when he is all but shot to pieces."
Unfortunately this is true, the Aussie media is disgusting. And from what little I've seen of it, the media in general. And there will be no winners, except their pockets. Not Bootsma, not his girlfriend and child, not the family of the kid involved, and not even Carlton.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Of course, that might not mean Bootsma shouldn't have been sacked, just that Williams should have been, too? |
Yes, depending on your perspective. Obviously, I defended Williams vigorously too and there were a few on here on the other side calling for his immediate tarring and feathering. But at least the majority on here showed a little bit of compassion and understanding—partially because he's one of our own, and partially because people by and large take a far more measured view of violent actions than sexual misbehaviour. Rationality and proportionate response just fly out the window with the latter, even when it's a comparatively mild incident (such as in this case). Obviously he was skating on thin ice as it was, but I wonder if the Carlton Football Club would have reacted so swiftly if Bootsma had gotten into a brawl at a nightclub? Of course, in either case I would argue that they were overstepping their mark, but try telling that to the zealous status quo defenders in here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Of course, that might not mean Bootsma shouldn't have been sacked, just that Williams should have been, too? |
Yes, depending on your perspective. Obviously, I defended Williams vigorously too and there were a few on here on the other side calling for his immediate tarring and feathering. But at least the majority on here showed a little bit of compassion and understanding—partially because he's one of our own, and partially because people by and large take a far more measured view of violent actions than sexual misbehaviour. Rationality and proportionate response just fly out the window with the latter, even when it's a comparatively mild incident (such as in this case). Obviously he was skating on thin ice as it was, but I wonder if the Carlton Football Club would have reacted so swiftly if Bootsma had gotten into a brawl at a nightclub? Of course, in either case I would argue that they were overstepping their mark, but try telling that to the zealous status quo defenders in here. |
I'm guessing if Marley was to Collingwood, what Bootsma was to Carlton, there would have been plenty saying dump him!
I'm also going out on a limb and saying a lot of the defence of Marley was because we really $£$%^%%$ need him on the field!
What you keep happily overlooking (you are so good at that, even when someone has an open dig at you you just let it go,I wish I could!) is the fact he was late for training more than once, late for appointments more than once, and 2 preseasons in a row (I believe he was only there 2 years) he showed up too fat to play!
If he was as important to them as say Sam Gilbert was to the saints at the time of the duthrie scandal, I'm guessing things would be different. Of course working in SAMs favour was the fact he trained on time, kept himself in shape and performed on the field (as well as off apparently).
Now do you get the LAST STRAW bit?
He wasn't sacked because of this, he just stuffed up too many times.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
The Prototype 
Paint my face with a good-for-nothin smile.
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: Hobart, Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
S'pose it depends on the club the punishment, and since he has form it's really hard to find any reason to have any compassion. He knew of the teams social media use rules, and clearly was told the last time about it.
If he did indeed send the nudes to the 15 year old like most are saying, how can we really find any compassion for that? Club contacted the AFLPA and such to find out what they could do and then contacted his management and sacked him.
With regards to Williams, different club and incident I am sure Collingwood could have sacked Williams for it but they chose to stick by him while also making him do community service.
_________________
Ðavâgé
https://www.facebook.com/davehardingphotography
https://www.facebook.com/Davage |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Of course, that might not mean Bootsma shouldn't have been sacked, just that Williams should have been, too? |
Yes, depending on your perspective. Obviously, I defended Williams vigorously too and there were a few on here on the other side calling for his immediate tarring and feathering. But at least the majority on here showed a little bit of compassion and understanding—partially because he's one of our own, and partially because people by and large take a far more measured view of violent actions than sexual misbehaviour. Rationality and proportionate response just fly out the window with the latter, even when it's a comparatively mild incident (such as in this case). Obviously he was skating on thin ice as it was, but I wonder if the Carlton Football Club would have reacted so swiftly if Bootsma had gotten into a brawl at a nightclub? Of course, in either case I would argue that they were overstepping their mark, but try telling that to the zealous status quo defenders in here. |
You are missing a fundamental point. The Williams incident was a once off, the Bootsma sacking was because the most recent incident was apparently the latest of a number of behavioural incidents. To compare the two incidents and outcomes directly doesn't work.
The Williams incident was enough in it's own right to justify sacking him if that was what the club wanted to do. They decided not to, I'm happy with that.
The Bootsma incident was not enough in it's own right to justify sacking him and if he had of had an otherwise clean slate it's likely it would have resulted in an internal warning, maybe a fine and most of us would be none the wiser that it ever happened. Because however, it seems he had in fact received multiple previous warnings and or been counselled for previous misdemeanors, he was out of warnings.
I'm not even saying that Carlton made the correct decision or that Bootsma deserved it, I simply maintain that they had the right to make that decision.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
