Vikings Message Board.Com

CalVike wrote:

I would be extremely surprised if there is such an agreement ever struck. I explained some of the reasons earlier in this thread, but I'll repeat them here. If the purpose of this independent investigation, which is being sanctioned by the Vikings, is to have Vikings organization address the alleged infractions, then it is unrealistic to think that that information be withheld. If there is a guarantee of anonymity given, that opens the possibility that additional persons or players may have also made comments that the organization needs to address. If anonymity guaranteed, it would be nearly impossible for the Vikings to take corrective action or sanctions against the offending parties other than Priefer.

Kluwe can always refuse to cooperate with the investigation without a guarantee, but that will further bring into question the accuracy of his initial allegations should he choose not to cooperate. They may eventually reach some sort of compromise as to limited distribution of the information, but at a minimum, Wilf will need to know who the parties are.

So ... as a mod I should probably weigh in here.

There have been various issues with this post and I've gone back and forth on how to deal with it. On one hand, a former Vikings player made a statement that has quite a bit to do with the conversation about civil rights, religion, etc. To some degree it's difficult to not discuss this issue without those coming up.

All-in-all, I've decided to allow it for the most part. Where the line will definitely be drawn is personal attacks.

If we can't discuss this issue without name-calling then I'll lock the thread.

I do not know, nor do I particularly care, how many forum posters are gay or gay and married. I would value your views on this. However my sister is gay and married, and I have to tell you she is LHAO at my paraphrasing of the views and responses in this thread. And she wanted to know if there were 572 posts in a thread after Kluwe originally came out for LGBT marriage rights.

We all just LOVE to post and opine when a big negative ("nuking" comment) is involved. But not so quick to post when someone tries something they see as a positive (Kluwe's original stance).

And I'm with Cliff, the personal and passive-aggressive posts need to go. Just respect the fact that people feel differently than you do about a lot of things.

psjordan wrote:I do not know, nor do I particularly care, how many forum posters are gay or gay and married. I would value your views on this. However my sister is gay and married, and I have to tell you she is LHAO at my paraphrasing of the views and responses in this thread. And she wanted to know if there were 572 posts in a thread after Kluwe originally came out for LGBT marriage rights.

Respectfully, that is apples and oranges. It appears to be the same on surface, but it's really not. The original post was dealing with a pretty narrowly defined incident. A governmental official had written to the team owner requesting that a player be silenced on his views. Kluwe, in a manner that I found totally inappropriate, voiced his opposition to a governmental official using his power and influence to suppress free-speech. I actually agree with his cause, but disagreed with this methods. I felt he was demeaning and insulting to another human being, the very behavior he professes to want to eliminate with respect to the LGBT community. It's relatively easy to be nice to someone we like, but it takes great deal more self-restraint to be courteous to those whose views are diametrically opposed from yours.

In reality, as many conflicts are, this is about perceived moral superiority. Kluwe is outspoken and shows little restraint in his rhetoric simply because he does believe he possesses the moral high ground. Those who oppose his views, do so because they believe they possess the moral high ground. If we are able to keep this actually on-topic-about the actual allegations against Priefer-we would have far fewer posts. I think the posts regarding the religious/political/other views for or against marriage equality/homosexuality should be moved to the off-topic forum. I disagree with the decision to keep them in this forum, but, I'm not a mod. (nor do I want the job-so thanks for those who do this unenviable task)

Cliff wrote:So ... as a mod I should probably weigh in here.

There have been various issues with this post and I've gone back and forth on how to deal with it. On one hand, a former Vikings player made a statement that has quite a bit to do with the conversation about civil rights, religion, etc. To some degree it's difficult to not discuss this issue without those coming up.

All-in-all, I've decided to allow it for the most part. Where the line will definitely be drawn is personal attacks.

If we can't discuss this issue without name-calling then I'll lock the thread.

Thanks, Cliff. Appreciate this well-thought and reasonable approach.

I agree, well said Cliff.

I for the most part am done with this topic. I want to see how it plays out. I do not have a favorable opinion of Kluwe or his actions as I think the timing of all this is quite malicious and that speaks volumes for me. I also have issues with the "witch hunt" aspect of things, but none of these items are things I can personally change so there just isn't much else to be said.

My last take on this topic.

Though I don't agree with it, Kluwe has the right to support the gay community if he wants to. That's not the problem. But accusing the team of firing of you because of your views was wrong. To try to ruined Priefer's career as a NFL coach because you're no longer on the team is wrong. I still think Kluwe fabricated the "Nuking" story but if Priefer said it, then he needs to be fined. It's rude to wish death upon anyone. However he DOES NOT need to get counseled by homosexuals or do community serves for the gay community. I think it is wrong to force someone to support homosexuality if they don't agree with that lifestyle. People who don't believe in Christ make jokes about people who do all the time. Yet they don't get in trouble or forced to attend a church service as punishment.

I really wish they would drop the whole case. I doubt Priefer has any hatred towards certain groups of people. If he did make that nuking statement, I bet he only did it because Kluwe's sorry #### wouldn't shut up and just concentrate on his job. I know many of us said mean things to someone just to get under their skin so they can shut up. It's not like Priefer was harrassing Kluwe or anybody else on the team.

If it comes out that it's absolutely true he said that exact quote...he'll be more than fined. That's for sure.

Valhalla wrote:Vikings considering keeping Priefer per NFL network.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_24 ... aff-report

Kluwe "won't shy away from suing" if the investigation does not turn up anything per other stories.

There's a 10 minute audio interview with Kluwe at the link below that seems to be the source for the idea that he won't shy away from suing is the investigation doesn't turn up anything.

http://www.advocate.com/sports/2014/01/ ... -necessary

This is from the same link:

Kluwe told political talk show host David Pakman that he would sue his former team if the investigation yielded no evidence that Priefer and the team presented an antigay, homophobic atmosphere. He added that he would rather avoid a lawsuit, but it might be necessary to get players to honestly testify to what they heard and saw.

"I haven't ruled out a lawsuit," Kluwe said Wednesday on the David Pakman Show. "I would really prefer not to have to do a lawsuit, because I loved my time on the Vikings, and I still have a lot of friends on the team and I love the organization. But if that's what it takes — if that means getting people on the stand with the threat of perjury, then something that will have to happen, because I made very serious claims, and they need to be backed up."

So far, it seems like he's way out on a limb here with no support. If he would, indeed, be willing to sue I assume it would be a wrongful termination suit and that his primary purpose would either be to force witnesses to testify under oath about Priefer's alleged comments or to receive a settlement. I don't know much about legal matters but based on Kluwe's reasoning and the evidence he's put forth to explain why he was cut from the Vikings roster, I can't imagine he'd have much of a chance to win a wrongful termination suit unless new evidence emerged in the form of a paper trail.

Valhalla wrote: It could be a possibility we might end up seeing an "out-of-court" settlement so as to save expensive legal and court costs. Could happen not as an admission of guilt but to keep the press out and save money.

If that is the final outcome, though, it would diminish Kluwe's credibility (at least with respect to his motivation) since he would have to agree to a monetary settlement and his alleged motives would then be construed as more about money than his cause.

Just Me wrote: If that is the final outcome, though, it would diminish Kluwe's credibility (at least with respect to his motivation) since he would have to agree to a monetary settlement and his alleged motives would then be construed as more about money than his cause.

Agreed. This could be a MAJOR headache if the things that were said were said because Kluwe is A) smart and B) appears to be very driven to get closure on this.

The more I think about Kluwe's point of "they drafted a punter when they had so many needs to fill"...it frustrates me even more. I really don't want to diminish the position but even if Kluwe isn't your guy, there are plenty of FAs waiting to get a job.

Think about it from a purely logical standpoint. The year before they released him, the Vikings drafted a rookie to replace Longwell, who was better at his position, and a more valuable position at that. Kluwe was always a mediocre punter, whereas Longwell has always been a top 5-10 kicker, so the way I see it you really can't say that the Vikings were kicking him off the team because of his personal views.

Do I think him running his mouth when he was told to stop could have factored in? Absolutely. I think that a lot of this is just purely his own fault though, I think there's a good chance that Mike Priefer was probably trying to illustrate the point that if you can say anything you want, so can I. In fact, Chris seems to know that, in his article he pointed out that the remarks were made in a "semi-joking" tone. Chris is just one of those guys like Bill Hicks, he's an ####, but he's kind of funny and he makes good points, so we tend to ignore the fact that they aren't entirely based in reality.

IrishViking wrote:
Agreed. This could be a MAJOR headache if the things that were said were said because Kluwe is A) smart and B) appears to be very driven to get closure on this.

Chris isn't that smart in a normal way, though, he's smart in that sociopathic sort of way. He's well-spoken and he can formulate an argument about almost anything, but he isn't realistic. Just a couple of years ago he was going on about freedom of speech, but then he writes an article in an attempt to punish someone who he felt was crossing some sort of line.

Like I said earlier, I think Priefer was obviously just trying to prove a point, and Kluwe being who he is, took this as an opportunity to try and ruin his career. That takes a certain kind of cold, calculating personality, which goes along well with what I said about him being smart in that sociopathic sense.

Mothman wrote: There's a 10 minute audio interview with Kluwe at the link below that seems to be the source for the idea that he won't shy away from suing is the investigation doesn't turn up anything.

http://www.advocate.com/sports/2014/01/ ... -necessary

If you listen to the interview, it seems Kluwe is convinced he was let go because of his stance. The interviewer asks him a separate question about whether he would sue if the investigation concludes there is no evidence he was 'let go' for other than 'football reasons' (my paraphrase). Kluwe was pretty definitive he would sue in that case. In essence, he is saying he will only accept the outcome of the investigation if it concludes what he believes is the case.