Man, something is REALLY strange about the order in which these new threads get posted.

It's just a wafer-thin mint.

"Here, let us break that wand for you."

So does this mean no more beer & KFC in the front office, either?

The Red Sox Monday asked senior adviser of baseball operations Bill James to refrain from commenting about Joe Paterno and the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State.

Should it say something to you when you have to muzzle your own adviser?

:-)

I bet the conversation they had with James was hilarious. I wonder how far it went before the phrase, "WTF are you thinking?" was uttered.

There is just no pile of dogshit the Red Sox can avoid right now, is there?

I'm trying to come up with something about James being silenced and the line, "My name is Bill James. I am not a Bill Jamesian," but nothing's coming.

I said it in the other thread, but SBNation should also tell Neyer to stop talking about this.

But if all these guys are silenced, no punching bags for the rest of us.

I said it in the other thread, but SBNation should also tell Neyer to stop talking about this.

I don't know, I'm instinctively against any kind of muzzling. I can see the Red Sox reining James in, but I don't see why SB Nation has to stifle the debate.

Fortunately for SB Nation, once James is muzzled, Rob probably won't have anything to say.

Anyone have a sense of James' personality? By which I mean, is he the sort of person to take this kind of public slapdown (notice that they didn't merely tell him STFU, they made a point of releasing a statement to the press) humbly? Or is he one of those prickly loose cannon types?

Would love to see a big meltdown here.

Fortunately for SB Nation, once James is muzzled, Rob probably won't have anything to say.

BUUUUUUUUURN.

I don't know James beyond a few minimal email exchanges. But I do know several people who know James very well, and the very strong sense I have is that James is and always has been a very difficult personality.

I don't know, I'm instinctively against any kind of muzzling. I can see the Red Sox reining James in, but I don't see why SB Nation has to stifle the debate.

I agree with you, but I see their situations the opposite way. Bill James used his own site to express his views, he didn't do it on the Red Sox site or on a Red Sox broadcast. Rob Neyer is using his SB Nation blog to express his views, if SB Nation doesn't want their writers entering that territory on their sites, they can directly reign Neyer in.

I don't know James beyond a few minimal email exchanges. But I do know several people who know James very well, and the very strong sense I have is that James is and always has been a very difficult personality.

That's my sense too but I don't see James as someone who goes looking for fights. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like he puts his opinions out there (whatever the topic) and after some limited back and forth just lets his findings/opinions speak for themselves. I also think he's savvy enough to understand why the Sox put out a statement even if he probably thinks it's unnecessary since it was his own personal website.

I don't really get the feeling James regards Paterno as a Wronged Man who needs a loud public advocate (Paterno is, after all, dead), or himself as that advocate, anywhere nearly strong enough to resign his consulting gig. He'll probably shrug and move on.

Fortunately for SB Nation, once James is muzzled, Rob probably won't have anything to say.

Not having anything to say has never stopped Rob from saying it.

I said it in the other thread, but SBNation should also tell Neyer to stop talking about this.

Why? SBNation is a website whose business model involves page hits. Writing controversial things -- and let's face it, what Neyer is writing is pretty attenuated from real controversy anyway (*) -- plays into that model; it doesn't undermine it. The Red Sox, on the other hand, are trying to sell tickets to families. James is not part of their sales campaign.





(*) Neyer is defending James for defending Paterno against the charge that he didn't do enough to stop Sandusky from actually doing the harm. Neither Neyer nor James is defending pedophilia, Sandusky, or Paterno's alleged malfeasance.

Not having anything to say has never stopped Rob from saying it.

Well jeez, if we're going to adopt that standard we might as well all shut up and go home.

I blame Bobby V.

James also said in a radio interview that men showering with young boys was ''quite common in America 40 years ago.''

Oh, well, I guess we are cool then. Of course, ####### them in the shower, you've got to go back a few more years.

(*) Neyer is defending James for defending Paterno against the charge that he didn't do enough to stop Sandusky from actually doing the harm.

I'm offended that he's defending the defender of the defender of the offender.

Which calls to mind the following exchange from Big Bang:

Sheldon: You’re a lucky man, Leonard.

Leonard: How so?

Sheldon: You’re talking to one of the three men in the Western hemisphere capable of following that train of thought.

Leonard: Well, what do you think.

Sheldon: I said I could follow it, I didn’t say I cared.

Not defending James in any way, but I took public showers with adults at the gym/pool when I was a kid - that'd be in the 80s. Never thought that was unusual, but also never asked.

Thinking back, #25, that was the case as well at a number of the public pools in my suburban childhood (80s). My suit may have stayed on, and then sheepishly hid behind locker doors as I got dressed, but there were men 18-80 in that locker room sans clothes and suits in the shower and locker room.

Thinking back, #25, that was the case as well at a number of the public pools in my suburban childhood (80s). My suit may have stayed on, and then sheepishly hid behind locker doors as I got dressed, but there were men 18-80 in that locker room sans clothes and suits in the shower and locker room.

I think it's still the rule in a lot of public pools. Of course, they don't usually open up the public pool and locker facilities for exclusive use by a man and a young unrelated boy (like they did at Penn State). There's generally a lot of people coming and going to limit the danger of such an activity.

SoSH has he relevant point. yes, I've used public showers with other men, no I've never gone into showers with other men, nor was there ever any horsing around is those showers that I'm aware of, even back when people actually used that phrase.

trying to imagine my reaction had someone 40 years ago (I'd have been 14) said, "C'mon, let's take a shower." Nope, it's not working.

Besides, we're not talking about showering here, anyway, unless that's a Kansasism I'm not aware of.

If Sandusky had showered with these kids, there's no crisis.

25-27: How much horseplay was there with boys and men 40 years older than them in these showers?

& WTF does 40 years ago have to do with 2001, anyway

Of course, Mayor, I agree with all of that - I just thought that some of the criticism James got for that line was unwarranted (apart from it being an unneeded addendum to an untenable address).

WTF does 40 years ago have to do with 2001, anyway

[throws bone in air.]

Of course, Mayor, I agree with all of that - I just thought that some of the criticism James got for that line was unwarranted (apart from it being an unneeded addendum to an untenable address).

It deserves every ounce of scorn one can muster actually. It's an utterly ridiculous and offensive statement, given the overall context.

I went to a public pool recently, and when I came back to the locker room I waited for a stall to open in order to change. I'm in there trying to tiptoe around urine in order to maintain decorum and then I walk out and see a 60ish year-old man standing bare ass naked in front of a locker. I don't know who was right, but I'm more comfortable doing it my way.

I think James's comments about Paterno have been stupid, and Boston's totally within bounds telling him to knock it off, but why not just quit the Sox at this point? I mean, you won your two rings, you HAVE to be financially comfortable by now, and there's nothing seemly about a grown free-speecher getting his free speech quashed by the boss. He should go full Murray Chass.

Misirlou, allow me to rephrase... if you want to knock it in the context in which it appears, go for it. But, I've seen a lot of mockery of that line outside of that context and that's what I found odd.
Granted, my question/comment is very small potatoes...

Misirlou, allow me to rephrase... if you want to knock it in the context in which it appears, go for it. But, I've seen a lot of mockery of that line outside of that context and that's what I found odd.

To me, it's along the lines of Whoppie Goldberg's "Rape rape" comment.

Of course, Mayor, I agree with all of that - I just thought that some of the criticism James got for that line was unwarranted (apart from it being an unneeded addendum to an untenable address).

The difference, as I see it -- well, beyond the fact that Sandusky was literally raping the kids -- was that these "public pool" and locker room situations were/are just situations where males of all ages happened to be mulling around taking showers and often even standing around naked chatting before getting dressed. But these Second Mile kids were there as Sandusky's guests, and he was showering with them (why? why shower in the first place? were they swimming? why would Sandusky shower with them even if the boy needed a shower?), and "horsing around" with them in the shower. Again, why? If any of us here were chaperoning a young underprivileged kid, would we ever find ourselves in a shower naked with the kid, horsing around? Especially after hours, in a private locker room, when nobody else is around? Should that not raise an eyebrow if we saw someone else doing it, to say the least?

What in the world are people defending this for, with "Oh, 40 years ago men would shower with boys." The situations are entirely different. And this wasn't 40 years ago, anyway.

There is just no pile of dogshit the Red Sox can avoid right now, is there?

I'm waiting for the "Syria in full scale civil war, Red Sox involved somehow" headline.

#37 Extra credit if your scenario somehow involves fried chicken.

I have showered many times in public locker rooms with many different ages of men.

At no point was there hugging or soaping of showermates. Sometimes there was horseplay, though that was only between teammates of the same age, and mostly involved people snapping towels, or this one dude who was always trying to pee on people.

In a non-team situation, there is a very strict protocol and horsing around is definitely to be frowned upon.

(In my experience)

Paging Jack Keefe

James also said in a radio interview that men showering with young boys was ''quite common in America 40 years ago.''

Back in the 60's our neighborhoodlum priest would let use the Catholic school gym for nighttime hoops...providing we all showered after playing. Now while 'ol Fadda Fanutzi stood off to the side and occasionally got lightly sprinkled on...he made damn sure every one of us were scrubbed up!

The university gym I go to has swim classes for little kids on the weekend and is also used by the university's summer sports camps. So there will be people ages 8 to 80 in the showers at times. Though you'd never say that adults are showering "with" the kids, more that they're in proximity. There's no interaction between (non-parent) adults and the kids outside of someone occasionally yelling at some kid for running in the shower room or something like that.

I went to a public pool recently, and when I came back to the locker room I waited for a stall to open in order to change. I'm in there trying to tiptoe around urine in order to maintain decorum and then I walk out and see a 60ish year-old man standing bare ass naked in front of a locker. I don't know who was right, but I'm more comfortable doing it my way.

The older you get, the less you care about people seeing you naked. The less they care, too.

What do you think this does for his Hall of Fame chances?

As others have said, big difference between a group of men, even including teens and kids, showering at the same time and "showering together". Many of us have been there and the first rule is: no contact, including eye contact. You clean yourself up and move along.

Also, at the local Y, built just a few years ago, there is a locker room for under 15s (both boys and girls). I assume it is for just this situation, although, honestly, I think there probably is as much danger of trouble from giving them their own space as there is mixing them with adults.

#37 Extra credit if your scenario somehow involves fried chicken.

I look forward to Youk riding an Abrams out of Damascus with Bashar Assad's head mounted to the turret.

Well Al some 1 said I was paiged to a thread it is about whether 1 should shower with young boys Al. Now why do they think of me in this Contacts. Al you know your self when we were nippers in the public baths of Terre Haute I was the shy 1 who always modestly draped a Towel over my Midriff. I do not think men should shower with any 1 else. I do not even like to shower alone I always close my Eyes and then when I drop the Soap I am afraid to bend Over and once I slipt on a Cake and spent 21 days on the Dishevelled List. But now they are all up set because a man named Bilge Ames says he has stats that show how boys in Kansas took showers with glistening strong erect Adult Mails in the year Dot. He has records for Soapiest Shower with a 14 Year Old, Extended Horseplay Percentage, and Most Bratwurst Hidden. Al I dont know about Bilge Ames but in Indiana we do not go for that kind of thing. Kansas guys may play When I Shampoo Yoo with boy sopranos but in Indiana we just run under the water and get out and think about wholesome stuff like baseball and the Swim Suit Issue and how at Mass when I was 13 there was this girl named Tina Reggiseno and if you sat behind her you could see her Bra Strap slip down below the yoke of her Garment and now I think I must Log Off Al and call my girl friend Tawny before I get Impure Thoughts.

WTF does 40 years ago have to do with 2001, anyway

[throws bone in air.]

I thought this was awesome. Well done!

But now they are all up set because a man named Bilge Ames says he has stats that show how boys in Kansas took showers with glistening strong erect Adult Mails in the year Dot. He has records for Soapiest Shower with a 14 Year Old, Extended Horseplay Percentage, and Most Bratwurst Hidden.

First Jack Keefe post that has ever made me authentically laugh. Well done.

<reposted>

The university gym I go to has swim classes for little kids on the weekend and is also used by the university's summer sports camps. So there will be people ages 8 to 80 in the showers at times. Though you'd never say that adults are showering "with" the kids, more that they're in proximity. There's no interaction between (non-parent) adults and the kids outside of someone occasionally yelling at some kid for running in the shower room or something like that.

Right. There is no "horsing around" between men and boys in these places, and no reason in the first place for Second Mile kids to be showering just because Sandusky took them to a game. (Serious question: What would a legitimate reason be for kids to be showering in an empty PSU locker room at 9pm, let alone showering with Sandusky, let alone "horsing around"?) WTF? And even if they _were_ exercising or whatever and needed a shower, kids wait until they get home to take showers, and at that they often wait a couple of days. Ten year old kids don't typically go rushing to the shower as soon as they exert themselves.

If Sandusky was teaching a gym class at a high school -- and I understand there was some involvement at times of Sandusky at various local high schools -- then it would not be suspect that a kid would jump in the shower. But it wouldn't be legitimate for Sandusky to jump in with him and start "horsing around." This is utter nonsense.

This is utter nonsense.

Of course. Is anyone denying this apart from Bill James?

Bill James has a minor point that nudity does not automatically correspond to child abuse. Living in Germany, I'm constantly amused to see little kids strip down and play in the fountains on a hot day.

But to describe the 1998 incident as simple "showering together" is to conceal as much as you describe. Sandusky wasn't just showering -- he insisted the kid use the shower next to him, bodily grabbed him and held him in the water, then bent over, kissed him on the head, and said "I love you." (I may be forgetting some details.) That's creepy, even if the other guy is 40. Dreaming up some contrived situation where nothing disturbing is going on avoids the fact that lots of disturbing things were going on.

So this all means "40 years ago in Kansas people used to drive their cars all the time" isn't going to beat a DUI?

Living in Germany, I'm constantly amused to see little kids strip down and play in the fountains on a hot day.

HOW amused?

47 is pure gold.

In Switzerland, and probably much of Europe, kids take off their swimsuits to dry when they get out of the water. And beach nudity is acceptable for all.

The brutishly sensitive (or is that sensative?) Jack misses only one nuance in his yeoman effort to conflate Mark Twain, Guillaume Apollinaire, and Ernest the tool man...which is that it's possible to pee on someone (or at least try to, as "eluded" to in #39...) without actually being nude and in the shower.

In terms of the Dantean "circle of hell" structure, we can make some distinctions worth noting. Sandusky is clearly in the ninth circle (brutal, ruthless betrayal of those who should have been in his care). Paterno hits the eighth circle for his involvement in a fraudulent coverup. A specific punishment for him would need to be teased out of the different aspects of such behavior that are detailed in the Inferno. Not sure whether Poz falls into panderer or flatterer, but the punishment for the former is to simply carry the burden of the infraction forever as one marches with the recognition of the ill-considered act for eternity. The punishment for the latter is, to put it closer to Jack's parlance, to be "dipped in sheet."

As for Bilge Aims (good one, Jack...), the Dantean formulation is a bit unclear. False accusations are clearly eighth-circle stuff, but what's really going on here is a form of fraudulent defense of Paterno. It is the type of thought/statement that many of us would make in private, or in a forum such as this, and it would not be permanently held against that person if there were some form of retraction (or some mitigating acknowledgement that such an interpretation was several SD's away from the consensus view). In this case, the prominence of the contrarian makes the statement much more public and much less likely to be either forgotten or forgiven. Idols, no matter what form they take and whether false or not, are always vulnerable to some form of revenge--justified or otherwise--from the masses. And, on several levels simultaneously, that's exactly what's happening here.

I'm not a fan of locker rooms, but nudity is a part of the package.

The possibility of the guillotine should hang over every ruler's head.

I never knew Bill James was such a pollyannaish cockeyed optimist. To see this sort of story, with quotes like

In the fall of 2000, Penn State janitor James “Jim” Calhoun witnessed Sandusky performing a sex act on a child in the shower of the Lasch Building, and immediately told other janitorial staff what he had witnessed.
It was an away-game weekend.
Jim, who now suffers from dementia, couldn’t testify. But others who were there that night told the grand jury that Jim was very distraught and trembling because of what he’d witnessed.
“Jim said he ‘fought in the Korean war ... seen people with their guts blown out, arms dismembered ... I just witnessed something in there I’ll never forget,’ ”

, and keep looking on the bright side with a hearty "Pshaw, we're upset about nudity in the locker room? Everyone did it back in the sixties!" - what a happy-go-lucky guy.

WTF does 40 years ago have to do with 2001, anyway

[throws bone in air.]


I thought this was awesome. Well done!

I thought so, too, but there's also

Best Buy's Geek Squad is holding a memorial tonight to honor Arthur C. Clarke. Alas. Everyone was far too polite to say this about the recently deceased sci-fi writer: Had he lived in the U.S. rather than Sri Lanka, he'd be a prime membership candidate for the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "Once they have reached the age of puberty, it is OK... It doesn't do any harm," Clarke told the U.K.'s Sunday Mirror in 1998

#33 Matt: Perhaps Bill James has more in common with Chuck Shumer than you want to believe.

Now I'm wondering exactly what kind of mentor James was to Neyer.

As others have said, big difference between a group of men, even including teens and kids, showering at the same time and "showering together". Many of us have been there and the first rule is: no contact, including eye contact. You clean yourself up and move along.

Exactly. James was either being stupid or dishonest here. He knew full well that the issue wasn't showering in the same communal shower, but "showering together," with lots of touching and grabbing.

#61: James is not claiming that what Sandusky did was innocent. He's claiming that Paterno could have honestly believed that what he was told Sandusky did was innocent. He wasn't told about the janitor incident.

#33 Matt: Perhaps Bill James has more in common with Chuck Shumer than you want to believe.

Someone's been reading non-baseball blogs today! Anyway, I thought Bill James *liked* cereal.

In Switzerland, and probably much of Europe, kids take off their swimsuits to dry when they get out of the water. And beach nudity is acceptable for all.

What's the point of wearing a bathing suit at all if you're going to take it off when you get out of the water?

What's the point of wearing a bathing suit at all if you're going to take it off when you get out of the water?

So fish won't eat your dick?

Bill James has a minor point that nudity does not automatically correspond to child abuse.

Perhaps. Harry Shearer has written that the swim classes at his all-boy high school (in 1950s Los Angeles) were conducted naked -- part of the graduation requirements involved successfully diving off the 3-meter board, which boy after boy would climb onto and jump off of au naturel.

He's claiming that Paterno could have honestly believed that what he was told Sandusky did was innocent. He wasn't told about the janitor incident.

Told by whom? McQ? Hardly.

I'm not a fan of locker rooms, but nudity is a part of the package.

And, oddly enough, the package is part of nudity.

#69, you don't know what you're missing.

James' comments that there's no reason why Paterno should have been the 1st one to go to the police because he knew less about what was going on than others did...that is just plain stupid. WHAT IF NOBODY ELSE WENT TOTHE POLICE? I mean, either you are the 1st or you don't go. Being 2nd was not an option.