>>[Shrink Rap] Yes, do you have any SCYSA discipline board's names, phone numbers, or email addresses that would verify if this has or has not occurred?<<No; however, I believe you can find contact information at
http://www.scysa.org. A bit closer to home, I believe you can find contact information for CSC at
http://www.columbiasoccerclub.org -- since someone had to claim being a victim if such a claim was made, it would probably be CSC, right? So you can check with your club's leadership as well.
>>Note; I have not posted any rumor on this topic that I have heard. I am only trying to understand if anybody on this site knows if anything has come out of this issue. I have stated that IF a sanction were given, THEN I believe the appropriate action would be to apologize and accept responsiblity.<<What you're doing is fishing. It's okay to stir the pot making insinuations and then sit back and loudly proclaim your innocence, but it's rather hard to look credible while you're stirring with one hand and gesturing proclaiming your innocence with the other.
>>Why would I kid about feelings being hurt at CSC?<<I have no clue. It's just difficult to take someone seriously who is claiming that one announcement hurt a club when that same club made an announcement concerning a merger two days later. If CSC felt a real wrong had been committed, it would have not only not announced its merger days before the state challenge cup but it would have fired the coach who announced he was going to CESA and gave his permission for his name to be in the announcement; instead, CSC welcomed him back (which in my opinion, was the right move for CSC.)
>>This is not victimization and let's have a pity part (I'm a licensed professional counselor and I've seen that much too often),<<Okay...I'm starting to understand the attitude now.
>>but it is the fact of the incident. If you recall, CESA came out first with their statement and within a week CSC/NECSA later came out with their statement. Question, not rumor, could it have been that one led to the other?<<Only if the leaders of CSC and NECSA weren't telling the truth when they talked to "The State" and said that CESA had nothing to do with their decision to pursue a merger.
By the way, even if they weren't telling the truth -- I don't believe that in two days CSC and NECSA got together, decided to do merger, and made the announcement. I've not seen that type of efficiency from boards of any corporate entity before.
But if I'm wrong, and the CESA announcement is what caused CSC and NECSA to merge, I would think a "thank you" is in order to CESA -- because Columbia-area soccer needed to change. But again, I don't believe a "thank you" is in order, because I believe what the leaders of CSC and NECSA said.
>>I believe some would like to discount what happened and say that Oprah-zation is now in youth soccer. But if it did happen and people were hurt, then what is the term we are to use? I call it "survivor", not victim.<<Staying with the facts for just a moment, here's what occurred. CESA made an announcement it was expanding its Columbia program and that a former CSC DOC and a CSC coach would join CESA. Two days later CSC and NECSA announced that they were in talks to merge.
Debating this logically has to be a losing proposition for you since any "losing of focus" or "hurt feelings" could equally be said to have occurred on either announcement. Clearly, none of the three clubs believed that making an announcement was doing anything other than informing its membership of its plans.
When things happen and people spuriously claim hurt who in fact did not suffer injury and who should not have reasonably suffered injury, that's called things like "frivilous" or a "culture of victimization" or "Ophra-ization."
>>Side note:
Victimization: If a family member gets abused (physical/emotional) is it termed A)being a victim B)Oprah-ization or C)being a survivor (assuming they live) ? I believe that a person who was hurt does not want to be known as a victim for the rest of their life, but they want to come out of an incident known as a survivor. When something truly happens why do some of us want to whitewash the whole discussion as if it never happened by throwing out the pity party card? If something happened call it for what it is. However, I am well aware that America has become the "blame it on someone else" society in order to not accept responsibility and this does cloud many positions.<<The problem is defining what "abuse" is. In this case, you're trying to sell "abuse" as CESA making an announcement with CSC being the victim when CSC performed the same type of "abuse" two days later and then a day or two after that CSC welcomed back an "abusing" coach immediately. It's a difficult sell, at best.
>>Accepting Responsibility:
We often jump to one side of an issue because we want to believe the person and we might think that they have the best interest of us in their minds. However, as we have learned from history, until we learn the facts it is wise to form ones opinion and wait until the facts come out to express his/her opinion. Remember Bill Clinton and, "I never had sex" or George Bush talking about weapons of mass distruction? How about Susan Smith and her aledged reports. We are often a passionate society and like to express our opinions. However, when we or leaders are wrong with our expressions, or lack thereof, we need to accept responsibility, receive consequences if necessary, and move forward.
I believe this is a great website for expressing opinions but we must understand that these are mostly opinions and not always facts. I wanted to believe Bush, Clinton, and Smith and expressed my opinion before knowing the facts. I've learned and I hope others learn that we are often deceived by what we hear or see. What counts is how we handle when we're wrong.<<Of course you have an opinion -- as do I. What it seems to break down to is that you believe the CESA announcement formed some type of "abuse" with CSC as a victim and I don't. This is an honest difference of opinion; while I find your opinion unfounded and without merit, I understand that you have some deep-seated inner need for it regardless of the merits of your argument.
With regard to the national context you cite: when Clinton said he didn't have sex with Lewinsky and later admitted it only when incontrovertable proof was found, it was clear he lied -- which he later admitted to the country and his wife and asked forgiveness. Equating that somehow to the WMD argument is silly -- while Bush was absolutely wrong that WMD's existed, he was wrong in the company of a legion of Republicans and Democrats (including Clinton) who believed that WMD's existed. You can hate Bush or love him, but trying to make the case that he knew the WMD's did not exist but fooled everyone into thinking that they did (even before he took office) has always been a bit of a stretch -- as evidenced by the last election. I'm not a fan of Bush (and am less a fan of Kerry); but the difference between "lie" and "mistake" couldn't be much clearer. If someone can prove that anyone lied about something, then I'm with you on the belief that someone should apologize.
