Bearcat Bob

UVAO... I too expended a great deal of financial resources to hone my craft. The Darden School of Business "ain't cheap", mon ami!! Democracies and well intentioned persons (not mutually exclusive) have long struggled with the issue of the limits, if any, to place on the expression of ideas and beliefs (speech). The dilemma dates back at least to ancient Greece, when the Athenians, who cherished individual freedom, prosecuted Socrates for his teachings, claiming that he had corrupted young people and insulted the gods. A bit closer to our time, The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." The discussion will surely continue and verdicts will be cast and those decisions either upheld or overturned at whimsy (yes, whimsy) of the SCOTUS. Let us put an end to this drudgery as such?: You seem to favor Oliver Wendall Homes, Jr. and I Hugo Black. Both with exceptions I am sure. Or, if you must respond, please do so in the political tab. I am sure Jethro has read enough of this. P.S.: John Locke? No. More George Mason.

Gladly. I think it would be better for VHS if Lee wins then VHS beats Lee, at least as far as power points go. Go LEE. JSB appears to have a lot of injuries to overcome and Lee is playing well.

With all due respect, you sir are incorrect. You may attempt to pettifog the argument by using "Clinton speak" (i.e: define is) when defining Freedom of Speech if you so desire. But the incontrovertible fact remains that the Freedom of Speech is an inalienable right of all U.S. citizens. It cannot be infringed upon by either private or public entity. To do so is a violation of one of the main tenets of our constitution. You are confusing the right of the board administrators to limit access to a private enterprise as inhibiting free speech. It is not. Access or membership in private entities is not a right. Country clubs, fraternities, sororities, message boards, Sam's Club, etc. all have the ability to limit access. I reiterate that they do not have the right to inhibit free speech. They do have the ability to establish membership criteria and the penalties for violating that criteria. It is up to the individual seeking membership to decide if they want to follow those guidelines. Enough poly sci...I deal with it everyday...back to HS sports...

Freedom of speech DOES exist in settings controlled by non-government actors, in the U.S. that is. The difference is who is allowed access to that setting (i.e. a message board). The admin can determine who they allow access to the site. If they do not like a persons comments, they can deny access, but they cannot restrict a persons right of speech. You just may not be able to say it here. A technicality I know but true nonetheless.

Calling kids soft is pretty darn harsh. Those are fighting words in many corners. I have not seen anything that would lead me to call them that. I played and bled for VHS. I have high hopes for a return to the days of Rat Cansler, Milton Franklin, Darryal Wilson, et al.

Soft? Inconsistent? Yes. Not very disciplined (yet)? Absolutely. But soft? BS, BS, and more BS. Lebanon won in OT after having a 2 TD lead. I wouldn't call that being hit in the mouth. Or if it was, VHS shook it off to force OT. I have thought all along that VHS would be up and down this year as we get accustomed to yet another new head coach and staff. But soft? C'mon man!

Unless the posts are vulgar, threatening or calling out a kid, I do not think blocking someone from the message board is appropriate. Especially if the only reason is you don't like what they are saying. Free speech and all that you know... Not saying I agree or appreciate what has been posted but this can be a slippery slope. Just saying.

Coach Wheeler is an outstanding man who would never tolerate, encourage or overlook poor behavior of his players.

I thought Coach Daniels encouraged his baseball players to play football. Is that not correct?

I am embarrassed by some of the actions on the field by a couple of the players. I saw one make a tackle after the opponent gained 15+ yds and a 1st down. Our player jumped up, did the "superman" thing with his jersey, like he just made a goal line stop on 4th and goal. He would have been on the bench in the blink of an eye under Fred Fisher.

No arguments about that. What I am alluding to is that VHS has had to start the last several seasons with a new coach each year. That is tough; whether it be HS, college or Pros. And that is the fault of whoever does the hiring and firing. Not trying to make an excuse, just giving a possible reason for the lack of gridiron success. And yes, the system in place should be viable by week 10. But maybe VHS doesn't have the players to fit the system; or the players haven't bought in, or the coach is not good, or the players are just not that good,...or maybe VHS is just a baseball school. I truly do not know what the heck it is.

What did I ever do to you to deserve such a slap?!?

I think this season's lack of success is more on the administration than anything else. It is tough on players to have to continually adapt to new coaches, systems, etc year after year. I hope VHS can get into the playoffs. Maybe, by then they will have settled into the system. In some aspects I am starting to feel like a Cubs fan: Wait 'til next year!

I have said all along that VHS' record would not be as good as their talent would seem to indicate (this year)....mainly because they have to adapt to a whole new system/coach. Again. Until there is some stability at the top, the results will not change much, IMHO.

My dear old grandpa used to also say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll just get frustrated and annoy the pig". So, at the risk of being annoying, hear are my final remarks on the topic. Making comments that cannot be proven in anyway (i.e. "if we played your schedule, we would have a better record") are condescending and generally meant to be an insult to the team to which they were directed. Not everyone dislikes Gate City because "Gate City usually beats them". You know what they say about making assumptions? I dislike Gate City mainly because of the attitudes of many of their fans. I do, however, respect their programs/players. Yes, I use the term "typical Gate City fan" as a derogatory description. I do not lump ALL Gate City fans into that category...only the arrogant, insufferable ones. I base that characterization on posts made and actions observed, not wins and loses. And the jury is still out on if this consists of only a "small" number of GC fans. I'll close with one thing my granny said often (though I think she borrowed it from Dr. Seuss): Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. Oh yeah...I think Battle wins a close one.

The closest I ever came to getting into a fight during a HS sporting event involved Gate City fans. During my senior year, myself, several teammates and 2 coaches went to watch a Gate City basketball game. They were next on our schedule and we had an off night. While in line at the concession stand, several grown men from Gate City started running down our team, our city, even our cheerleaders, etc. These weren't students, they were grown "men". Seems that some things have not changed much.

"Opposing fans understandably learn to dislike losing to GC"... "GC's non-common opponents are a combined 27-10. A little more impressive than Battle's opponents at 16-12. Even if you take Sullivan South's 8-0 record out of the mix, GC's opponents would still be 19-10"... "I would GUESS that GC would have Battle's record, even with all the injuries/turmoil, if they had played Battle's schedule." I noticed that you did not address these in your rather long and detailed response. If you are going to "go there", you have to go all the way. My suggestion: LET IT GO. The more you try to prove your not a "typical Blue Devil", the more the typical you seem..

"Opposing fans understandably learn to dislike losing to GC"... "GC's non-common opponents are a combined 27-10. A little more impressive than Battle's opponents at 16-12. Even if you take Sullivan South's 8-0 record out of the mix, GC's opponents would still be 19-10"... "I would GUESS that GC would have Battle's record, even with all the injuries/turmoil, if they had played Battle's schedule." These types of comments are all too common with many Gate City supporters. True statement? Maybe, sure. Appropriate? I guess. Annoying? Yes. Why? Because it happens all the time. I doubt you even see why these comments are irksome. And I am not from Battle. My dear old grandpa used to tell me not to put much stock in people who felt it necessary to brag on themselves or who belittle others. Just saying...

If tradition has continued (and I am sure it has) those Battle girls are cute. I'd stand over there if I were 30 years younger.

Not to belabor the point but each school can determine what is or is not allowed at their facilities. A school may ban something such as cowbells, if for no other reason than gamesmanship. Anyway, good luck v. Gate City. I side with Jethro on this one. I don't care for Gate City fans very much. Nothing against the players but some of those fans are insufferable.

How many yards did Brown end up with v. Abingdon?

Rumor or not, it would be easy to enforce. If you use a banned noise maker, you are escorted out of the facility. Simple. No different than smoking in a smoke free zone. I saw a basketball game last year in which the home team was called for a technical foul when their fans continued using bells after an announcement was made to stop. The same could probably be done in a football game, I think.

That is what I was alluding to. Lots of kids are athletic and fast, but not lots of kids can take it when they get hit. Playing tough football isn't easy, nor should it be. And I am not saying that the East teams are soft. I just think SWVA football is more physical than is the East.

No matter what you think about this topic or what you do to personally address the issue; no one can argue that there is an issue. Just look at our political system. Most people used to work for a living. Now MANY vote for a living. Vote for the person who promises to give you the most, regardless of your need or ability to gain it yourself. Back in the day, if you played sports, you practiced hard and HOPED to get playing time. Now, I hear parents all the time saying that little johnny has to play because little johnny is little johnny (the I get mine and don't worry about the team mentality). I recently heard a mom and dad rip into an assistant coach because little johnny wasn't playing enough. Little johnny stood right there behind mom/dad with a smirk on his face. Guess what, little johnny is a starter now. If my parents would have done that, I would have been too embarrassed to show up again. I am not sure there is as much pressure on kids to perform/succeed as much as there is for them to "get theirs". Doesn't seem to matter that "getting theirs" seems to mean "give me mine regardless of the effort I put forth". I used to think reality would eventually catch some of these kids and their families...but it looks like reality is changing to match their attitudes.

I'd like to see Altavista or Essex play teams from SWVA. The Colonels are very good with athletes galore. But I am not sure if they are football players, if you know what I mean. I'd like to see how Ft. Chiswell or Honaker stacks up against them or Essex.