Mike - honestly - how do you focus on the one kid from PITT when he's surrounded by all those PSU students doing pretty much the same thing?  You lead your article with this fact (nice kick save by deflecting blame there) and buried at the back of your article is the fact that the PSU fraternity kids turned on their own guests! Imagine - what a thrill that must have been for those OSU brothers to be socializing with their PSU brethren and then have to leave after their hosts start threatening them and throwing beer at their backs as they leave.... Perfect PSU gentleman I suppose, higher standards and all.

But, who cares - one kid was from PITT!! He'll get charged while everyone else there "should get a stern talking to"??

This PITT student was obviously an asshole, as was every other kid out there.  Watch the video again - unless this punk has five arms there were a lot of others tossing beer cans around also.

Or to be as asinine as you - one could look at it like the PITT kid was the only one that had the guts to get up close to the OSU kids while the PSU pussies sat around egging him on and filming it, all the while throwing beer from their relative 'safety in numbers' pack like a bunch of 13 year olds tasting their first beer.

God Mike, stick to talking about football.......

Reed - Two things.  First, while I don't know what Mike intended, my reading of his statement was far different from yours.  Let's look at what he actually said, rather than your characterization of what he said:

"But let's not forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people there were Penn State students and fans. And they either joined in throwing cans of beer, stood by doing nothing, chanted "F___ Ohio", or worked the video camera making asinine comments. These people should not be let off the hook."  

So far so good, right?  Then he says:

"While charges may be harsh, a stern talking to is in order from someone."

What he doesn't say is "Charges are OK for the Pitt student but not for the Penn State students and fans."  You seemed to take that from his statement, and maybe that's what he meant.  But I didn't read it that way.  Finally, he closes with:

"That's why I'm glad to see the Pi Kappa Alpha house facing sanctions from the University and Police."

Again, no discrimination.  I personally disagree with Mike that charges may be harsh -- I'd charge everyone against whom charges can be substantiated.  I was walking in the parking lot area across from Beaver Stadium about two hours before the game and witnessed at least three similar incidents -- it was disgusting.  As a longtime fan, I was ashamed of Penn State.  

Finally, there's no need to resort to ad hominem attacks (e.g. "Or to be as asinine as you").  Personally, I find as a general rule that the level of discourse rises when criticism is directed against ideas, not the person voicing the idea.

NYLINE - yes, you are correct that the level of discourse rises when critism is directed against ideas vice the source.  And, may I add that journalistic, or public, discourse also rises when it isn't directed against an institution, or groups of people, in an unfounded manner.

But, if we are parsing Mike's writings, read his words again - to quote...

"Apparently the Pitt guy didn't get the memo, bitch."

Especially notice the mention of the fact (again) that he attends PITT, and of couse, calling someone 'Bitch' keeps that discourse level right up there, doesn't it?

Here's my take on Mike's writing for what its worth - he has taken the effort to create and maintain a public forum for discussion of college football - Penn State in partcular, but also publishes social commentary as part and parcel of that subject. It's his right to do so, and he does it very well for the most part.

However, I believe that he has also put himself in the position to have certain responsibilities that go along with that. One of those responsibilities is to be as fair and even handed as possible in 'reporting' on his chosen subjects (call me old fashioned but I do think there are certain standards of behavior - even on the internet). Does that preclude his being a PSU fan and showing his love for the school? - of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have a Blog subject. But, if he is doing it with blinders on, and not expecting critism when someone disagrees with him, then all this site becomes is a diary of a shill. I do not think that is Mike's intention, and I certainly don't view "Black Shoes" as such.

However, we read a lot from PSU fans and alumni about certain standards and sets of behavior that need to be adheared to because it's the "PSU Way" or somesuch.  OK, if you are willing to self-impose those standards, then adhere to them - don't just be an arbitrator.  So, that can, and should,  be accomplished without dragging other's reputations through the mud. Apparently in this case it's easier to demonize the fool from PITT then it is to put the blame squarely on everyone's shoulders where it so obviously belongs.  And, somehow, that kid now represents the University of Pittsburgh as awhole - but all those PSU students doing the same thing would not and could not represent Penn State as an institution.

Well, you can't really have it both ways.

Reed: I may be wrong, as again, I can't possibly know what Mike was thinking, but my take on the use of "Bitch" was a reference to what I seem to recall was the use of that word in the video.  In other words, it struck me as intended to be ironic (though admittedly jarring, and I had to reread the sentence to reach that conclusion).  As to your other points, we simply disagree on what Mike meant, or didn't mean, and unless Mike weighs in, we can't resolve that disagreement.

... And thanks for replying.  It's your site and you can do whatever you like, obviously. I enjoy it (99% of it) so I'll keep coming around, and - I hope - keep adding food for thought.

Thelast paragraph in my reply to NYLINE was not necessairly addressing you personally - although I seem to have written it that way.  More so to the PSU faithful en mass.  I try not to insult other teams and their schools, and guess that I just don't really understand what good it does to do that.

(But I'll throw in some good natured jibes from time to time though).

So, back to football - good luck on Saturday, I'll be watching on TV.  I do think it will be a tough one as Purdue can pass very well, so I've predicted 24-21 Purdue on another site, but I'll root for PSU to win.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/11/01/video_incites_suspension.aspx

suck.

Do you think that since the osu "brothers" spent friday night and were obviously in a rush to leave that their psu "brothers" will mail their tooth brushes to them or will they have to buy new ones.

I wonder how many times that line is used in the upstairs of PSU's fraternities on a given weekend?

[Insert Ed McMahon hey-oh]

Has been charged along with the frat.