In the Oregonian, here. In case anyone is wondering how the Ducks affect state sentiment for a more independent UO. While I’m posting random links, anyone remember this particular bit of Duck intimidation?
Even those who disagree with Sohlberg’s challenge to the sign could have been more vigorous in upholding her right to call the UO and the city to account. Instead, Sohlberg was left to face a gale of hostile opinion on her own.
I’m thinking the editors are talking about Frohnmayer. Original RG story here. This was right before he signed off on this secret deal with Kilkenny – which, according to new VPFA and former Duck AAD Jamie Moffitt, is still in effect.
And if you are more interested in the sports than the scandals, check out the excellent FishDuck.com website. Independent analysis of Duck football by some truly obsessed fans. The history section covers all UO sports, and it is awesome. 8/5/2012.
“It will represent the power of big institutions and the triumph of shouting over dialogue.
That’s not the kind of sign the UO had in mind.”
Hmm. Don’t know ’bout that.
Offensive intimidation comes in many sizes.
But it’s the people playing defense that suffer the worst brain damage:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/dave-duerson-autopsy-repo_n_839629.html
I remember this incident well. The lack of support for Sohlberg–even a simple request to the community for civility, was appalling.
Wait … more interested in sports than scandals? Obsessed fans who acknowledge no scandal are now believable analysts? Dude.
History is cool there and that’s about it.
You’re thinking about Frohnmayer. Why? The editors, again, were only thinking about their own backsides. Whom does their usual vague response serve? Not Kilkenny.