califortunate;842860029 said:

---

Monster thread has had over 3 million hits.

---

I suppose it would be pointless to explain to you that 2.5 million of those hits were his own as he replied to himself.

Seriously, if you think he's so entertaining, beg him to create a blog where he can make all of his own rules and you can read them to your heart's content.

SFCityBear;842860041 said:

---

Shocky out. Blueblood back in. Go figure.

---

Shocky isn't out. He just doesn't want to have to post under the same rules everyone else has to post under.

califortunate;842860029 said:

---

Don't like it; don't read it.
Your problem solved.

Monster thread has had over 3 million hits.
Have any other threads gotten anything even close?

And yes I will cancel premium if he's not posting.
By far, the monster shtick is most entertaining part of BI.

---

Bye felicia!

From Lew Welch, "Chicago Poem":
You can’t fix it. You can’t make it go away.
I don’t know what you’re going to do about it,
But I know what I’m going to do about it. I’m just
going to walk away from it. Maybe
A small part of it will die if I’m not around

feeding it anymore.

I go on holiday for a week and come back to this. Why aren't Cal fans allowed to have a little fun? That's not a message I'd want to send to recruits.

SFCityBear;842860041 said:

---

Shocky out. Blueblood back in. Go figure.

---

And Yogi, too, apparently. What does it all mean?!?

Big C_Cal;842860121 said:

---

And Yogi, too, apparently. What does it all mean?!?

---

Could it mean that the new owner is a Trump supporter who wants to stack this board with Bannonites?

Big C_Cal;842860121 said:

---

And Yogi, too, apparently. What does it all mean?!?

---

More interesting posts on the board less pics of yoga brunnetts. But I do hope bill keeps posting a bit. He once pm'd me and said Oscar frayer won't make admissions months before he decommitted. Bill seemed to have scary good inside info, I'll grant him that.

Bring back Richard Lee!

Anne Frank would want Shockey back

BC Calfan;842860138 said:

---

Bring back Richard Lee!

---

Richard Lee hated the ducks even more then shocky, especially that player who had de-comed from cal to play for them.

ccajon;842860197 said:

---

Richard Lee hated the ducks even more then shocky, especially that player who had de-comed from cal to play for them.

---

I remember that. Interestingly, if Garrett Sim didn't decommit and play for the Ducks, Cal doesn't wind up with Jorge Gutierrez. Funny how things work out sometimes.

OK. I resisted but I gave in.

I am completely torn about Shocky/Bill.

First, he clearly was a passionate believer in both Cal athletics and the public purpose of the institution writ large. Irrespective of the rest, his generosity helps promote something that gives me pleasure and joy and thus he deserves a big nod and thank you.

But there were 2 things that deeply upset me and for which I am also glad that he is stepping away from the Shocky persona.

First, I think he failed to understand and appreciate his very small role in a BIG problem. We objectify women in this society. Yeah, I know, it is a sports board. But EVERY time you post to suggest that the only thing that gives women validty is their physical form (and that the only thing smart men aspire to is model thin yoga instructors) you feed that problem. Again, I would recommend to you ALL the youtube below. Am I guiltless? Absolutely not. I am conditioned through 50+ years of American society. But as a dad who has grand hopes for SCT the daughter it pains me to think that this is how our society conditions too many women. Shocky and I exchanged serveral PMs on this. I just am sorry he couldn't see this. To each his own.

Second, shock and I had serious disagreements about whether the thread had evolved into "journalism" and thus whether, as a journalist, he had responsibility to follow general guidelines of the profession (double sourcing, independent confirmation, etc.). For me the last straw was Dennis Gates and his "interview" which Shocky reported out as fact and details. I have no idea whether Dennis bombed it by not spending what would have taken 10 minutes of prep on the plane ride. But I _DO_ know that if you report that as a reporter you DAMM well better have it sourced well or you are risking a libel action and your editor will can you (the minute before HE gets canned). Many of you had similar feelings about the GPA thing and as others have pointed out, in some cases that got close to an NCAA line that is problematic.

Both of those could have been addressed. But Shocky didn't want to. Given that, on the whole, it is best that he move on.

The above mentioned Dove Soap Ad. I STRONGLY suggest watching it if you care about daughters, sisters or others in your life who may not hit the ideal of Shocky's yoga instructors. It will honestly make your cry.

Understand why you had issues w Bill.
And respect that you have differences w his relentless postings of women in bathing suits and kids' GPA's.
But still don't grasp why just saying "no" to his thread(s) isn't sufficient (in)action.
If folks are offended or irritated bc of whatever he writes, just don't read it.
But why should the many of us who find it amusing/entertaining not have access to Bill and his unique/eccentric persona?
If the new owner(s) wanna take him out, that is their prerogative of course.
But the people who post or lurk here are far more numerous than anywhere else on the site.
It's not even close I wouldn't think.
Also, I find it really shocking (not shocky) how anyone can get so emotionally worked up about any college sports website.
This is like modern-day comic strips.
It just aint that serious.

socaltownie;842860232 said:

---

Second, shock and I had serious disagreements about whether the thread had evolved into "journalism" and thus whether, as a journalist, he had responsibility to follow general guidelines of the profession (double sourcing, independent confirmation, etc.). For me the last straw was Dennis Gates and his "interview" which Shocky reported out as fact and details. I have no idea whether Dennis bombed it by not spending what would have taken 10 minutes of prep on the plane ride. But I _DO_ know that if you report that as a reporter you DAMM well better have it sourced well or you are risking a libel action and your editor will can you (the minute before HE gets canned). Many of you had similar feelings about the GPA thing and as others have pointed out, in some cases that got close to an NCAA line that is problematic.

---

I teach some of this stuff, and there is no way that anything he wrote is close to actionable libel. Read up on (1) the public figure exception and (2) how parodies are dealt with under the first amendment.

More broadly, like the last poster said, why read the thread and whine about it. I'm about the last person to call anyone a snowflake, but it's close to fitting several posters in this thread.

dal9;842860260 said:

---

I teach some of this stuff, and there is no way that anything he wrote is close to actionable libel. Read up on (1) the public figure exception and (2) how parodies are dealt with under the first amendment.

More broadly, like the last poster said, why read the thread and whine about it. I'm about the last person to call anyone a snowflake, but it's close to fitting several posters in this thread.

---

Go back and read his posts about candidates interviewing for the HC job which he absolutely claimed insider knowledge of things that went on INSIDE THE INTERVIEW ROOM and then come back and tell me he didn't liable at least one candidate. ....or expose the University to liability for disclosing discussions involving employment.

califortunate;842860245 said:

---

Understand why you had issues w Bill.
And respect that you have differences w his relentless postings of women in bathing suits and kids' GPA's.
But still don't grasp why just saying "no" to his thread(s) isn't sufficient (in)action.
If folks are offended or irritated bc of whatever he writes, just don't read it.
But why should the many of us who find it amusing/entertaining not have access to Bill and his unique/eccentric persona?
If the new owner(s) wanna take him out, that is their prerogative of course.
But the people who post or lurk here are far more numerous than anywhere else on the site.
It's not even close I wouldn't think.
Also, I find it really shocking (not shocky) how anyone can get so emotionally worked up about any college sports website.
This is like modern-day comic strips.
It just aint that serious.

---

I think that the reason to get so emotionally worked up about Shocky is that, when one realizes that anything humans set their hand to has an artistic component and that people have come to recognize important manifestations of it even in graffiti (see Bosquiat) and comic strips, in this strange, little "basketball" corner of the known universe (stranger still because of its association with a truly life-changing university), Shocky has, in his own weird way, created something that is indeed meaningful art - something in fact worth coming back for, like undying music (a subject I, personally, know a lot about) because it, again in its own weird way, it informs our soul (the use of the collective singular there being on purpose), and therefore our life (whether we "agree" with it or not).

mikecohen;842860290 said:

---

I think that the reason to get so emotionally worked up about Shocky is that, when one realizes that anything humans set their hand to has an artistic component and that people have come to recognize important manifestations of it even in graffiti (see Bosquiat) and comic strips, in this strange, little "basketball" corner of the known universe (stranger still because of its association with a truly life-changing university), Shocky has, in his own weird way, created something that is indeed meaningful art - something in fact worth coming back for, like undying music (a subject I, personally, know a lot about) because it, again in its own weird way, it informs our soul (the use of the collective singular there being on purpose), and therefore our life (whether we "agree" with it or not).

---

I just teared up a little bit

The Buddha. Jesus. Mother Theresa of Kolkata. Gandhi. Shocky. Possibly Tebow (depending on how he hits in double-A).

califortunate;842860245 said:

---

Understand why you had issues w Bill.
And respect that you have differences w his relentless postings of women in bathing suits and kids' GPA's.
But still don't grasp why just saying "no" to his thread(s) isn't sufficient (in)action.
If folks are offended or irritated bc of whatever he writes, just don't read it.
But why should the many of us who find it amusing/entertaining not have access to Bill and his unique/eccentric persona?
If the new owner(s) wanna take him out, that is their prerogative of course.
But the people who post or lurk here are far more numerous than anywhere else on the site.
It's not even close I wouldn't think.
Also, I find it really shocking (not shocky) how anyone can get so emotionally worked up about any college sports website.
This is like modern-day comic strips.
It just aint that serious.

---

Not reading it is certainly an option but it doesn't solve the many problems with the thread/blog. For one, he started copying and pasting posts from other threads and trashing them on his own thread. Second he tried to police discussion about recruiting to fit his own PR agenda which made it pretty difficult to have meaningful threads elsewhere. Third, he posted so much more than anyone else that his blog came to define the board itself. Fourth he simply posts a lot of misinformation, some of which is damaging to 17 and 18 year old kids. Hell he even threw Charlie Moore under the bus...

socaltownie;842860232 said:

---

OK. I resisted but I gave in.

I am completely torn about Shocky/Bill.

First, he clearly was a passionate believer in both Cal athletics and the public purpose of the institution writ large. Irrespective of the rest, his generosity helps promote something that gives me pleasure and joy and thus he deserves a big nod and thank you.

But there were 2 things that deeply upset me and for which I am also glad that he is stepping away from the Shocky persona.

First, I think he failed to understand and appreciate his very small role in a BIG problem. We objectify women in this society. Yeah, I know, it is a sports board. But EVERY time you post to suggest that the only thing that gives women validty is their physical form (and that the only thing smart men aspire to is model thin yoga instructors) you feed that problem. Again, I would recommend to you ALL the youtube below. Am I guiltless? Absolutely not. I am conditioned through 50+ years of American society. But as a dad who has grand hopes for SCT the daughter it pains me to think that this is how our society conditions too many women. Shocky and I exchanged serveral PMs on this. I just am sorry he couldn't see this. To each his own.

Second, shock and I had serious disagreements about whether the thread had evolved into "journalism" and thus whether, as a journalist, he had responsibility to follow general guidelines of the profession (double sourcing, independent confirmation, etc.). For me the last straw was Dennis Gates and his "interview" which Shocky reported out as fact and details. I have no idea whether Dennis bombed it by not spending what would have taken 10 minutes of prep on the plane ride. But I _DO_ know that if you report that as a reporter you DAMM well better have it sourced well or you are risking a libel action and your editor will can you (the minute before HE gets canned). Many of you had similar feelings about the GPA thing and as others have pointed out, in some cases that got close to an NCAA line that is problematic.

Both of those could have been addressed. But Shocky didn't want to. Given that, on the whole, it is best that he move on.

The above mentioned Dove Soap Ad. I STRONGLY suggest watching it if you care about daughters, sisters or others in your life who may not hit the ideal of Shocky's yoga instructors. It will honestly make your cry.

---

Boy:

Anyone who doesn't think that the awful issues about being a woman, big and small, gross and subtle, profound and petty, need healing in the worst way is just not sane.

But, I think that, in order to really address those issues, due respect (not necessarily positive respect) must be given to the truly organic components of these questions, which components, in all their gross imbalance, have been handed us by G_d.

I admit that this way of thinking is Freudian, in that it recognizes the power of sex that, all the time, in many ways, major and minor, is pushing us all around in the service of the need (G_d only knows why) for procreation.

So, among many of the other complications of this infinitely complicated subject, I think it is undeniable that an inevitable part of that nexus is the necessity for people to be attracted to each other sexually; and, for reasons I far from understand, the physical attractiveness of women is of a high importance which it is hard to over-estimate.

Having said that, I think that what Shocky misses (although his choice of models does not miss this, because, at least as I see them, they are not exploited victims or playthings, but tend to express personal power and confidence, even as Shocky ignores those qualities in his writing) is something that I think could help address the above-mentioned problems:

The, I think, truth that the spirit manifests the flesh, such that, whether one understands this in the throes of attraction or not (and I tend to think that most people don't), what people are really attracted to is the power and beauty of the spirit (which, by the way, makes a lot of unconventional looking women very attractive - certainly enough to free them from the spirit-killing values addressed by the video).

A joke comes to mind, told to me by a woman who is an accomplished and successful lawyer, and certainly a feminist: About a man complaining bitterly to G_d about how oppressively irresistible the various physical aspects of women are (i.e., hair, curves, etc.); and asks G_d why he made them that way, to which G_d says: "So you would be attracted to them", to which the man responds: "But why did you make them so stupid?", to which G_d says: "So they would be attracted to you."

TheSouseFamily;842860295 said:

---

I just teared up a little

---

I laughed... out loud.

mikecohen;842860299 said:

---

Boy:

Anyone who doesn't think that the awful issues about being a woman, big and small, gross and subtle, profound and petty, need healing in the worst way is just not sane.

But, I think that, in order to really address those issues, due respect (not necessarily positive respect) must be given to the truly organic components of these questions, which components, in all their gross imbalance, have been handed us by G_d.

I admit that this way of thinking is Freudian, in that it recognizes the power of sex that, all the time, in many ways, major and minor, is pushing us all around in the service of the need (G_d only knows why) for procreation.

So, among many of the other complications of this infinitely complicated subject, I think it is undeniable that an inevitable part of that nexus is the necessity for people to be attracted to each other sexually; and, for reasons I far from understand, the physical attractiveness of women is of a high importance which it is hard to over-estimate.

Having said that, I think that what Shocky misses (although his choice of models does not miss this, because, at least as I see them, they are not exploited victims or playthings, but tend to express personal power and confidence, even as Shocky ignores those qualities in his writing) is something that I think could help address the above-mentioned problems:

The, I think, truth that the spirit manifests the flesh, such that, whether one understands this in the throes of attraction or not (and I tend to think that most people don't), what people are really attracted to is the power and beauty of the spirit (which, by the way, makes a lot of unconventional looking women very attractive - certainly enough to free them from the spirit-killing values addressed by the video).

A joke comes to mind, told to me by a woman who is an accomplished and successful lawyer, and certainly a feminist: About a man complaining bitterly to G_d about how oppressively irresistible the various physical aspects of women are (i.e., hair, curves, etc.); and asks G_d why he made them that way, to which G_d says: "So you would be attracted to them", to which the man responds: "But why did you make them so stupid?", to which G_d says: "So they would be attracted to you."

---

Here is the problem with all of the above (and it will be a pretty profound moment) - your attraction IS NOT biologically determined. How do we know that? Because what is upheld as the male defined notion of sexual beauty varies DRAMATICALLY between time and place. Just 2 examples....remember that in 19th century China foot binding, which essentially deformed women's feet, was seen as creating ridiculously appealing sexual object. And in Rapheal's time (16th century italy) the standard of beauty was of a body type that I am SURE Shocky would call fat (while yoga like women would be considered freaks).

Now that isn't necessarily a "problem". What makes it is if the vision of highly attractive beauty is oppressive. Ours isn't as bad as some (see footbinding or piercing or genital mutilation) but it isn't good because least we forget - nearly all of Shocksters beauty shots are professional photos with lots and lots of air brushing.

NYCGOBEARS;842860302 said:

---

I laughed... out loud.

---

I can imagine Mike having a whole wall of his bedroom covered with printouts of his top 100 spiritually moving Shocky posts.

Yogi Bear;842860307 said:

---

I can imagine Mike having a whole wall of his bedroom covered with printouts of his top 100 spiritually moving Shocky posts.

---

Is the other wall full of Nagel prints?

Yogi Bear;842860307 said:

---

I can imagine Mike having a whole wall of his bedroom covered with printouts of his top 100 spiritually moving Shocky posts.

---

LMAO. Just another apostle to the church of Shocky. The interesting thing is he could have been a far more tolerable and informative fan (like many of his "boys" posting here envision him being) but his ego (think Napolean) wouldn't allow it. I actually enjoyed him early on in Monster V1.0 but as he became more offensive and egocentric I spent a good amount of time PM-ing with him trying to encourage him to soften the offensive nature that have become dominant. I've even talked with him postgame at Haas and found him to be the opposite of his online presence. Unfortunately, he went further in attacking Cal recruits and signees (Moos in particular) and kids who he practically worshipped during their recruitment but turned on once they chose other schools (numerous recruits) and Cal fans who disagreed with him (me and SFBearz for example).

I won't miss him given what he became but I hope he continues his support of Cal sports and learns to act like an adult. One other anecdote. At the hoops reseat this year, I was talking with a friend (on the cellphone) and his Cal tix rep while I was acting as my buddies proxy. I asked her if she knew of any boosters sitting in the new court side seats and she said a few but some are very difficult. We were (my buddy and me) talking about Shocky and she didn't know that name but referenced "that little guy who stands up and yells all game long).

'Nuff said.

you took a lot of words to basically say he is a jerk .. his photos are offensive and reflect a mindset that is very out of date.

Oakbear;842860321 said:

---

you took a lot of words to basically say he is a jerk .. his photos are offensive and reflect a mindset that is very out of date.

---

I always enjoyed the Cal BB info, but accepted that I had to wade through "his schtick" to get it. It was kind of like reading a newspaper (and that dates me) where you see all the news and sports info but your mind blocks out the advertisements (unless you have a need there). The one thing that I found most offensive though, having a daughter and three granddaughters is that I felt in his "cool guy created aura" he was always mildly p**ping his daughter. Again, just tried to move by it. But I have never seen that posted here to date about shocky. I do miss the info though.

OdontoBear66;842860331 said:

---

I always enjoyed the Cal BB info, but accepted that I had to wade through "his schtick" to get it. It was kind of like reading a newspaper (and that dates me) where you see all the news and sports info but your mind blocks out the advertisements (unless you have a need there). The one thing that I found most offensive though, having a daughter and three granddaughters is that I felt in his "cool guy created aura" he was always mildly p**ping his daughter. Again, just tried to move by it. But I have never seen that posted here to date about shocky. I do miss the info though.

---

Unfortunately the info was a small portion of his posting. Not sad to see his thread go; sad to see Bill fail to grow.

The monsta' threads didn't change much over the years, but two things did:

1) new ownership of the site (which even allowed wrongly banished posters to return)

2) he went all "fire and fury" on Williams

Take your choice.

socaltownie;842860303 said:

---

Here is the problem with all of the above (and it will be a pretty profound moment) - your attraction IS NOT biologically determined. How do we know that? Because what is upheld as the male defined notion of sexual beauty varies DRAMATICALLY between time and place. Just 2 examples....remember that in 19th century China foot binding, which essentially deformed women's feet, was seen as creating ridiculously appealing sexual object. And in Rapheal's time (16th century italy) the standard of beauty was of a body type that I am SURE Shocky would call fat (while yoga like women would be considered freaks).

Now that isn't necessarily a "problem". What makes it is if the vision of highly attractive beauty is oppressive. Ours isn't as bad as some (see footbinding or piercing or genital mutilation) but it isn't good because least we forget - nearly all of Shocksters beauty shots are professional photos with lots and lots of air brushing.

---

I understand about cultural differences and cultural determinism. But (watch out for the double negative) I do NOT think that the need for sex, and therefore the power of it to push us around and make us deal with it, is NOT biological; and, commensurately, I also think, to a certain extent, that the widespread (if not universal) tendency for men to "need" to oppress women (which plays out in the examples you give as well as in the general objectification of women in our culture, that, essentially, seeks to remove from them the power of their sexuality over men - by putting it into a little picture that can be held in one's hand) is part of the same biological nexus which plays out in the different cultures in all the weird and often horrible, forms which you reference.

One of the main aspects of Shocky's manifestation of this push-pull is his particular expression of the Madonna/ Whore dichotomy (which I have always personally found very weird) that he expresses in his reverence (being an avowed "mama's boy") for mothers (whom the local recruits should seek to please by playing where their mothers can attend) while clearly and expressly seeking to hold up, as a goal of success (instead of anything having to do with love) the objectified vision of beauty he portrays (with the additional hidden, implied message that, like Soylent Green, the people in the objectified beauty, not existing other than in the objectification, will simply disappear after a certain age, or become sexless mothers).

I don't mean by that analysis to attack Shocky. In fact, from I.M. communications with him, I am convinced that he understands the conflicts and contradictions with a degree of sensitivity that, frankly, I didn't expect.

But what I mean to say is that there ARE biological, G_d given contradictions in the relations between (or among, as the case may be) the genders with which we all have to deal, and which we all have the moral compunction to somehow resolve and/or make right; and I certainly know that, within wider bounds than are usually considered part of the dialog, I am NOT one to judge how individual persons resolve those issues for themselves.

This is very entertaining. I feel like I'm reading two French film critics deconstructing Jerry Lewis' "The Nutty Professor."

It's very possible that I'm missing something here but I've never seen censorship solve any problem...just my opinion and observation as simplistic as I am...

The Nutty Professor is a great reference. The problem isn't necessarily sexism or anything along those lines. Its narcissism plain and simple. He wants (ed) the attention here and wanted to be seen as "the man" ... as I said in another post, away from the board he wasn't half bad.... (I will forgo the small man joke at this time)..

petalumabear;842860453 said:

---

The Nutty Professor is a great reference. The problem isn't necessarily sexism or anything along those lines. Its narcissism plain and simple. He wants (ed) the attention here and wanted to be seen as "the man" ... as I said in another post, away from the board he wasn't half bad.... (I will forgo the small man joke at this time)..

---

Just to make manifest what, undoubtedly, a lot of readers already know: The relevance of the flowering of French critical appreciation of "The (original) Nutty Professor" was the seeing of artistic merit in a form that was theretofore dismissed and derided, essentially as Hollywood trash; and that is certainly the character and quality of my defenses of Shocky against the artistic Philistines who criticize Shocky on this Board - "and", as Arnold Schoenberg said of the comment that his string quartet writing owed something to Mozart, "I am proud of it."

mikecohen;842860481 said:

---

Just to make manifest what, undoubtedly, a lot of readers already know: The relevance of the flowering of French critical appreciation of "The (original) Nutty Professor" was the seeing of artistic merit in a form that was theretofore dismissed and derided, essentially as Hollywood trash; and that is certainly the character and quality of my defenses of Shocky against the artistic Philistines who criticize Shocky on this Board - "and", as Arnold Schoenberg said of the comment that his string quartet writing owed something to Mozart, "I am proud of it."

---

Obviously, bonehead English fall 1959 did me no good.