[personal] Re: [Husker] Ostergard

[JEN_SENS]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Reichenbach" <reich at inetnebr.com>
To: <Sklarbodds at cox.net>; <answerman1 at hotmail.com>; <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [personal] Re: [Husker] Ostergard


> What a piece of trash.

Please be careful my feelings get hurt easily and I may jump to the 
conclusion that your concern for how other people are treated doesn't extend 
to your fellow posters ;-).

>First, you wish that people on the list didn't learn about this,

I said I was hoping it wouldn't get to the list. I knew it would turn into 
the endless "he said she said" arguments from all of us who have no 
knowledge of what really transpired. FWIW, I also hoped that the article 
about Koslowski's new book trashing the Solich regime from the eyes of a 
walk-on wouldn't make this list for the same reason. That is, dredging up 
arguments based on feelings rather than facts.

>Then, you write that it's "hilarious" that people should care about another 
>person mistreated in the AD because that person isn't as
> prominent as some others.

No it is important that everyone is treated with dignity and worth. People 
have value regardless of their station in life and labor has value 
regardless of what you do. I simply find it interesting that the Athletic 
Department seems to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the 
University. My point was that there are more than likely numerous instances 
where University employees have not been treated properly and we don't know 
about it because it doesn't make the papers. (Really no sarcasm intended; I 
hope you are just as passionate about your students, the people in your 
department and the building personnel being treated with dignity and 
respect. We need more people who will do this.) People have latched onto 
this because it confirms their belief that Pederson is the Anti-Christ.

>Next, you conduct a smear, claiming that some unnamed parents may have 
>sworn at him and that some unnamed  former players may have >wondered if he 
>could do the job (despite the many public accolades from former parents and 
>players).

Actually I was using hyperbole to state a truth. Different people will have 
different opinions about the same medical person. You prove my point. You 
speak of many who spoke highly of him. I know of some who have not. If you 
are truly interested I will give you tthe names of two football players' 
fathers whom you could call and ask their opinion of the University medical 
staff. Again, I am simply stating the opinion of a former player who knew 
Doak as an assistant trainer. To be fair, I am sure that he was comparing 
him to Schneider and Kelly which is as unfair as expecting Frank to come in 
and coach his first year like Tom coached his twenty-fifth year.

>Next, you  suggest that there is some basis in his work that led to his 
>dismissal

No I am stating that I believe it is disingenuous for him to say he has no 
idea why he was let go (and this is the basis of the argument of 
mistreatment).  This does not happen out of the blue. As he said, there was 
"head butting". Ever since the Fall it has been human nature to try to place 
the blame on someone else. (Hence different people having differing opinions 
on the same medical person).

>Finally you imply that if he doesn't file a civil lawsuit (and be happy 
>about suing) that there really must have been a good reason he was fired.

In our litigious society this seems like a softball. I am grateful to the 
individual who pointed out he was an "at will" employee. I was not aware of 
that.

>Where did you study innuendo?

IU

> You seem quite accomplished at it.

Everyone needs a niche.

Gerald