The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

A Day On Board… Veterans’ Day

Posted by iusbvision on November 6, 2006


E-5 Hospital Corpsman Scott Gorney graduated from South Bend Riley High School in 1989 and immediately enlisted in the Navy over that summer.  He was stationed in Yokuska, Japan on the USS Bunker Hill, an Aegis class guided missile cruiser.

Scott served his country on two continents during his time in the Navy.  First, Gorney served in the Middle East in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm.  He also served in Somalia in 1993 during Operation Restore Hope.

After serving our country in the Navy for six years, Gorney returned home to South Bend in 1995.  He married his wife Becky in 2000, and now they have two sons, Alex, 3 years old, and William, 1 year old.

Gorney is currently enrolled here at Indiana University South Bend as a Public affairs major.  After graduation, Gorney hopes to work in the public or non-profit sector.

31 Responses to “A Day On Board… Veterans’ Day”

  1. Matt Santos said

    I have a question. Since Mr. Gorney lied to us about his work with your paper, I wonder if he is really a veteran or not. I wouldnt put it past him after the blantent plagerism he did for the Vision. Could someone on your staff verify his information to see if he is actually a veteran or not, maybe he lied there too. Just a thought.

    Matt Santos

  2. Matt Santos said

    This guy looks like a waste of human flesh. What a loser. I doubt if he is even married at all. Look how fat he is. I hope your recruiting standards are higher in the future.

    Matt Santos

  3. Sam said


    Those were very disparaging, personally hurtful statements about another human being.

    You seem to have changed your tune a bit in this thread (?).

  4. Kevin C. said

    I just wanted to come out of retirement to say that Matt Santos’s comments about Mr. Gorney are the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on this weblog. Without a doubt, comment number 2 should be removed from the website.

  5. My point was to say that plagerism is just like lying, or stealing, or any other foul action humans may take. After I took a look at Sam’s proof against M.R. Gorney, I am convinced he is guilty. I think we should all give Sam a round of applause for his excellent work in uncovering this scandal. Gorney is a dirt bag, who should be removed from this campus. As for my other comment, I think asking about his credentials as a veteran is valid, seeing how he sought to mislead us in the past, is anyone else going to say this, probably not, but I did. Second, did you see that photo of Gorney, what a slob.

    Matt Santos

  6. Rachel Custer said


    Asking about credentials is one thing. Personally insulting another human being in the way you have is completely against the spirit of the Vision weblog, in my opinion. We have respectful, adult conversations, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, religious or not, and your comments are not welcome in those conversations. I personally have had photographs taken of me in which I hardly look human (think driver’s license photos). The next time you post, please have something worthwhile to say.

  7. Matt Santos said


    Will your paper distance itself from this blantent violation of plagerism, or are you going to defend him. This obviously has been going on for a long time, and I find it hard to believe that the editors knew nothing of this. I would also like to know whether Gorney is a vet or not, this is a legitimate question. How far will your paper go to regain its reputation. As far as I am concerned, nothing less of a refutation of Gorney and all his work, and verifying his credentials as a vet will do.

    Maybe Gorney will come back and defend himself after all.

    Matt Santos

  8. Rachel Custer said


    I think it’s clear how I feel about plagiarism from my previous posts. However, I also recognize that people make mistakes, and I feel very strongly that you owe Mr. Gorney an apology for your distasteful comments above. I don’t know how the editors will address this issue, since I am not an editor. They are addressing it, and I have expressed my opinion on the matter both on the weblog and to the editors; that is all I can do. However, even if Scott Gorney had done far worse than plagiarizing, I would still think that your personal insults regarding him were inappropriate and uncalled for. You seem to think a lot about reputation and propriety in others; I suggest you examine the impropriety of your statements above and think about the reputation you would like to have on this weblog. Scott has, at least, admitted that what he did was wrong. I see no such admission from you.

  9. Anonymous said

    I wonder…

    Matthew Vincente ‘Matt’ Santos is a fictional character on the American television show The West Wingbelived to be based on Senator John Kerry, played by Jimmy Smits. His initial appearance is as a Democratic U.S. Representative from Houston, Texas. (

    Such hateful comments are reflective of those making them. Look in a mirror Matt, or don’t hide behind a fictional name to make such blatant disrespective statements about veterans who fought for your freedoms.

  10. Rebecca Gorney said

    I do not like the comments that you have said about my husband. Scott is not lying about being a veteran. He did serve this country in the U.S. Navy. Scott is also married and does have two beautiful sons.

  11. Jarrod Brigham said

    Scott Gorney is a veteran. The issue of plagerism will be addressed in the next issue of the Vision along with providing all original sources for the articles and an apology to the readers and student body. This is the only time I will address the issue on the weblog. I will respect his right to privacy until a public statement is made in the Vision.

  12. matt santos said


    As far as I am concerned, you have ZERO creditbility as well. As I stated before, I find it hard to believe that you had no knowledge of what was going on with Scott’s writing. You were supposed to be the editor, and oversee all of this, and you failed at your job miserably.

    Next, this is what is wrong with this country today. Someone who has been caught red handed doing something wrong is being defended, while I, just a view of this site, am being lambasted. Maybe there is no place on this campus for a right wing propaganda machine like this.

    Matt Santos

  13. matt santos said

    I have asked three different professors on campus about this case, and they all say the same. Any case of plagerism on campus is a violation of University code. I have persuaded one of those professors to turn Scott’s name into the University, and action will be taken against him. If I can find someway of tying Jarrod to this as well, I will get him too.

    Matt Santos

  14. Maybe we should be checking all of these article for plagersim, including Nortons. If there was one “bad apple” in the bunch, doesnt it make sense there are more. I heard it from a reliable souce on his staff, of which I can not name, that this is not the first case of plagerism against this paper. Hey Jarrod, why did your wife quit writing for this paper?

    Matt Santos

  15. Rashida Vindic said


    Your comments in regaurds to Scott about him being fat and calling him a dirt bag is a clear violation of the student code as verbal abuse as designate here Please be the forth right person you claim you are and give me your full name so I can ask the campus Judicial Office to start the prosecution against you.

  16. Matt,

    I wasnt going to write on this blog anymore, but I feel that I must now. Jarrod has been a loyal and trustworthy friend the entire time I have known him, and your repeated attacks against his character warrant a response. Jarrod knew nothing of what I was doing. He accepted that they were mine since I submitted them. He trusted me, and I let him down. Yes, I admit, I knowlingly plagerised my work for this paper. I am deeply sorry to all the readers and the editorial staff. I have a very busy life, and it is not always easy to sit down and write article. I am not using this as an excuse, but just the sympton of something bigger that was wrong with me. I dont really care what you say about me, I have had worse, but too attack a good man like Jarrod is out of line. In addition, I think it is out of line to insinuate that his wife was guilty of plagerism. I know them both, and they are good christian people. I think if you are the honorable man you claim to be, you will retract all your statements about Jarrod and Sandy and offer them an appology.

    Scott Gorney

  17. Chuck Norton said


    Thanks for clearing up for us that your goal is not academic honesty but rather “getting him too”.

    I see that your other goal is to stop free speech when you said “Maybe there is no place on this campus for a right wing propaganda machine like this.”

    Oh how poor the far left is at hiding the hate in their agenda.

    Jarrod is a good man and he will get to the bottom of this. If Scott did break the rules Jarrod will say so straight up, if Scott just sent the wrong text file in an email attachment and the copy editor just slapped his name on it than Jarrod will explain what happened straight up.

    As far as your crack about “right wing propaganda”, umm Scott writes from a leftist perspective and anyone who reads the articles can see that, so what the hell are you talking about? We also cover student clubs and events and spotlight a member of the faculty or staff every week….or maybe its the sudoku game that has all this propaganda you are referring too.

    There is no question that I have a more traditional editorial point of view than Scott does, and if Scott did intentionally plagiarize an article your critique of him would have merit, but since you have made the claim that the Vision is “right wing propaganda” I challenge you to debate me on the merits of any one of my columns if front of the student body using Lincoln-Douglas debate style.

    You have shown us that you can sit back from afar and call names and sling labels against the entire Vision staff without backing them up, but I am betting that you either don’t have what it takes between the ears to get in the arena of facts and ideas with me, or simply don’t have the guts to do so.

    Oh Matt one more thing… hate is NOT a family value.

  18. Erkki KochKetola said

    Chuck, you never responded to me accepting your challenge.

  19. Rachel Custer said


    Thank you for your forthrightness and honesty. I understand that things can be very overwhelming and I hope things get better for you. You have admitted your mistake using your own name, and that is all one can really ask of a man. On the other hand, Matt hides behind his fake name and has not acknowledge his reprehensible behavior. It is clear to me which one of you has more character.

  20. Chuck Norton said


    Straight up Lincoln Douglas Style – Those are the terms, as I recall, you added a bunch of stipulations that were so rediculous that it showed that you were unserious.

    If you want Lincoln Douglas style – straight up – you know my email.

  21. Erkki KochKetola said

    What do you mean “Lincoln Douglas style?”

    And are you unfamiliar with the concept of negotiation?

  22. Hellig said

    Matt Santos said,

    “If I can find someway of tying Jarrod to this as well, I will get him too.”

    Jumping Jehovah Jireh! The drama! Aren’t you a little too old for internet drama, Matt? Then again, you sound like you never really graduated from WebTV circa 1997… and living in your parents’ basement …and having sex with small pets…

    Are you a student? What is your GPA? If you have this much spare time, why don’t you put it towards something more productive, like fighting world hunger or freeing Mandela?

    I have a better idea: throw Jarrod in a lake. If he floats, he is a witch. WITCH! WITCH!!!

  23. Ivan said

    I have a better one for you. This is all a scam. Jarrod knew about Scotts political beliefs, and he still asked scott to do it. I know scott, he is in one of my classes. Scott didnt want to do this articles, because he is not on the left of the political spectrum, and because he didnt have time. But because scott and jarrod were at one time friends, scott did it anyway. Now look at what it got him, he has his good name dragged through the mud, and he has to meet with the administration, and may be kicked out of school. Real good paper and friend jarrod turned out to be.

  24. Alexander the Great said

    I do appreciate the diligence on the part of the “watch dogs” of this paper, and their self described mission to make the world safe from plagerism on a non academic paper. My hope is that they have this diligence on all such publications on campus

  25. Bret Matrix said


    See post 16.

  26. Rachel Custer said


    Scott’s personal political views are irrelevant, as is his lack of desire to write or his motivation for writing. If he felt he couldn’t, for some reason, write original pieces for the Vision or perform the duties asked of him without plagiarizing, he should have simply said no. This is a personal responsibility issue, and I guess we see where you come down on that. Scott himself has said that Jarrod has no responsibility for his choices, and to be honest, he dealt with the issue like a man when he owned up to his actions; I see you have little or no regard for the virtue of personal responsibility. Personally, I respect a man who can say “I was wrong” than a man who blames everyone else for the consequences of his actions.

  27. Hellig said


    Don’t look now, but your ass is showing.

  28. Hellig said

    Moreover, Ivan…

    Do you have any control over how absurd you allow yourself to sound?

    In your first post, you basically blame Jarrod for Scott being caught as a plagiarizer. The is analogous to, say, being offered a job, being caught stealing paperclips, and then blame the company because, after all, had they not offered you a job you wouldn’t be caught stealing paperclips there…

    I mean…….a 9-year-old would be able to point out the fallacy of your argument!

    If that wasn’t enough, you proceed to post ONCE AGAIN, only this time you have the stupifying AUDACITY of trying to pass as an apologist for personal responsibility?????

    I know what this is…You guys are pranksters. You and Matt Santos are in cahoots to f–k with us. You must be. No one with that twist of a logic can be serious! I refuse to accept it!

  29. Rachel Custer said


    Actually, I was the one who wrote the post about personal responsibility, and I can assure you, I am a real person who is not using a pseudonym. I stand by my comments that if Scott did not wish to write for the paper for any reason, he should have simply said no. That, to me, is the proper response to Ivan’s attempt to push the blame for Scott’s actions onto Jarrod. I’m not sure if you just didn’t realize that I wrote that post, or if you think my post was not written by a real person, but I hope I have laid to rest both misunderstandings.

  30. Erkki KochKetola said


    The terms were not in fact “Lincoln Douglas Style;” that’s a recent addition. Nevertheless, I’m curious what you mean by “Lincoln Douglas Style.” I’m familiar with the debates that Lincoln and Douglas conducted, and their format; do you mean to suggest that you want to stand in the main cafeteria for three hours debating? If so, who’s being serious?

  31. Chuck Norton said

    …… priceless….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: