Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 21:35:08 GMT -5
How is it NOT? Both players are/were Giants and the incidents occurred when they are/were Giants.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 18, 2019 7:41:58 GMT -5
1-not the only possible situation, there are many even if they are rare......that is smart.
2-Playing what odds...you have zero actual information. Tell you what....I'll flip a coin here, 50/50 odds, if you get it right I'll give you a million dollars. Play those odds, we will see how you do. Easy for me because I only need to report the information to you that I want you to know....what actually happened with the coin matters little. Heck, there doesn't even need to be a coin. I win all the time if I hold all the information. This is how the news media works these days, they think it is their job to make the news. They are the Ministry of Truth...or Minitrue if you will. If they do it right we will see Miniplenty and Miniluv close on its heals.
1-Didn't say it was the only situation....just that it's rare. Extremely rare.
2- Your analogy doesn't work because there is no eye witness testimony or police report to say what the results were. Just your words alone. Or are you saying the media is completely lying and setting themselves up for a major libel lawsuit? There is no media conspiracy against a football player that no one has ever heard of. If you believe that then I have the ultimate tin foil hat collection I'd like to sell you for a million dollars.
In the end, we will see who's right and who isn't. Care to bet that million?
1-Again, any situation that requires violence is extremely rare. Everybody understands this. Why the need to specifically point that out in this situation? It's like greeting somebody and saying "Good morning! It seems gravity is keeping me from flying off the planet today." 2-How would you know about what eye witnesses saw unless the media shares what they say? Once again though, I suggest you look up some of those studies done on eye witnesses and the reliability of human observation. The media routinely makes up news or at the very least selectively reports the facts mixed with conjecture and fabrication for the sole purpose of gaining more attention to what they are reporting. Nothing any of the media outlets report can be trusted as fact based truth, they became entertainment a long time ago. It isn't about a conspiracy against a football player, the specific subject and characters in their tale matters little, they just need it to fit whatever story they wish to tell for their audience. I'm not willing to bet, because I do think that it is significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong here than he did not. I just don't sit here and pretend to know what happened, because I don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 11:46:52 GMT -5
1-Didn't say it was the only situation....just that it's rare. Extremely rare.
2- Your analogy doesn't work because there is no eye witness testimony or police report to say what the results were. Just your words alone. Or are you saying the media is completely lying and setting themselves up for a major libel lawsuit? There is no media conspiracy against a football player that no one has ever heard of. If you believe that then I have the ultimate tin foil hat collection I'd like to sell you for a million dollars.
In the end, we will see who's right and who isn't. Care to bet that million?
1-Again, any situation that requires violence is extremely rare. Everybody understands this. Why the need to specifically point that out in this situation? It's like greeting somebody and saying "Good morning! It seems gravity is keeping me from flying off the planet today." 2-How would you know about what eye witnesses saw unless the media shares what they say? Once again though, I suggest you look up some of those studies done on eye witnesses and the reliability of human observation. The media routinely makes up news or at the very least selectively reports the facts mixed with conjecture and fabrication for the sole purpose of gaining more attention to what they are reporting. Nothing any of the media outlets report can be trusted as fact based truth, they became entertainment a long time ago. It isn't about a conspiracy against a football player, the specific subject and characters in their tale matters little, they just need it to fit whatever story they wish to tell for their audience. I'm not willing to bet, because I do think that it is significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong here than he did not. I just don't sit here and pretend to know what happened, because I don't. 1- No..we were discussing violence against women not ANY situation. The "requirement" for a man to resort to violence against women is FAR MORE rare than violence against men. Men tend to become violent far quicker and a lot of times it is without warning, leaving very little choice but to respond in kind.. Generally women do not immediately resort to violence and it takes a woman time to get to that point. Giving men far more opportunity to defuse or remove himself from the situation. I am specifically pointing that out to counter your argument. Sorry it bothers you so. The ACT of violence against women is not extremely rare for men....Unfortunately, it is actually far too common A lot of times it's their first instinct. What I'm arguing is that nearly 100% of the time, an act of violence against an aggressive or violent woman is completely avoidable.
2- sigh......this is becoming tiresome. The report specifically says what the accusations are and what is in the police report. Falsely reporting these issues makes the media outlet vulnerable to libel lawsuits. You and I can banter back and forth about what we think may have happened with zero consequences. The media cannot.
I haven't "pretended" to know anything. I choose to believe that the reports are more accurate than yours and my GUESS based on the law of averages and the liability that comes with false reporting. And in the end, you admit you feel it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong" based on the same exact information that I have. To continue this argument is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 18, 2019 12:59:52 GMT -5
1-Again, any situation that requires violence is extremely rare. Everybody understands this. Why the need to specifically point that out in this situation? It's like greeting somebody and saying "Good morning! It seems gravity is keeping me from flying off the planet today." 2-How would you know about what eye witnesses saw unless the media shares what they say? Once again though, I suggest you look up some of those studies done on eye witnesses and the reliability of human observation. The media routinely makes up news or at the very least selectively reports the facts mixed with conjecture and fabrication for the sole purpose of gaining more attention to what they are reporting. Nothing any of the media outlets report can be trusted as fact based truth, they became entertainment a long time ago. It isn't about a conspiracy against a football player, the specific subject and characters in their tale matters little, they just need it to fit whatever story they wish to tell for their audience. I'm not willing to bet, because I do think that it is significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong here than he did not. I just don't sit here and pretend to know what happened, because I don't. 1- No..we were discussing violence against women not ANY situation. The "requirement" for a man to resort to violence against women is FAR MORE rare than violence against men. Men tend to become violent far quicker and a lot of times it is without warning, leaving very little choice but to respond in kind.. Generally women do not immediately resort to violence and it takes a woman time to get to that point. Giving men far more opportunity to defuse or remove himself from the situation. I am specifically pointing that out to counter your argument. Sorry it bothers you so. The ACT of violence against women is not extremely rare for men....Unfortunately, it is actually far too common A lot of times it's their first instinct. What I'm arguing is that nearly 100% of the time, an act of violence against an aggressive or violent woman is completely avoidable.
2- sigh......this is becoming tiresome. The report specifically says what the accusations are and what is in the police report. Falsely reporting these issues makes the media outlet vulnerable to libel lawsuits. You and I can banter back and forth about what we think may have happened with zero consequences. The media cannot.
I haven't "pretended" to know anything. I choose to believe that the reports are more accurate than yours and my GUESS based on the law of averages and the liability that comes with false reporting. And in the end, you admit you feel it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong" based on the same exact information that I have. To continue this argument is pointless.
This isn't an argument, it's a discussion. 1-Each individual situation is different. Yes, men are more likely to become violent. However, what I said was that situations where the BEST course of action is violence are exceptionally rare, regardless of gender. Which is different than situations where things will get violent. Which agreed, is much more likely with men. If a man becomes violent and aggressive with you, walking away is just as likely and viable an option as it is with a woman. If anyone, regardless of gender, chooses to begin the violence they loose any ability to claim being a victim of anything. I'm 4'11" and about 98 lbs; if I choose to get into the face of and punch Dexter Lawrence for example, if he punches me back I would have deserved it. Now, it would absolutely not be the right thing for him to do, but it would be my own GD fault and I should be charged with assault. Now if the situation were different and it was you instead of me, him hitting you back would be the wrong way to deal with it and you should be charged with assault as well. So I really don't see why this is a gendered issue. Violence is nearly always the wrong answer and gender doesn't factor into it. 2-As a public figure the standard for libel is much lower and the media works around that quite well with their choice of words. "It is being reported that the police report report says........" now they can fill in with whatever they want. I don't think they are doing that in this case, but I am not simply trusting what they say as I am well aware that nothing they say can be trusted anymore. And you haven't been able to trust it for a very, very long time. Well before I was born anyway. When news became entertainment, all journalistic integrity became as common as honesty in politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 13:43:50 GMT -5
1- No..we were discussing violence against women not ANY situation. The "requirement" for a man to resort to violence against women is FAR MORE rare than violence against men. Men tend to become violent far quicker and a lot of times it is without warning, leaving very little choice but to respond in kind.. Generally women do not immediately resort to violence and it takes a woman time to get to that point. Giving men far more opportunity to defuse or remove himself from the situation. I am specifically pointing that out to counter your argument. Sorry it bothers you so. The ACT of violence against women is not extremely rare for men....Unfortunately, it is actually far too common A lot of times it's their first instinct. What I'm arguing is that nearly 100% of the time, an act of violence against an aggressive or violent woman is completely avoidable.
2- sigh......this is becoming tiresome. The report specifically says what the accusations are and what is in the police report. Falsely reporting these issues makes the media outlet vulnerable to libel lawsuits. You and I can banter back and forth about what we think may have happened with zero consequences. The media cannot.
I haven't "pretended" to know anything. I choose to believe that the reports are more accurate than yours and my GUESS based on the law of averages and the liability that comes with false reporting. And in the end, you admit you feel it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong" based on the same exact information that I have. To continue this argument is pointless.
This isn't an argument, it's a discussion. 1-Each individual situation is different. Yes, men are more likely to become violent. However, what I said was that situations where the BEST course of action is violence are exceptionally rare, regardless of gender. Which is different than situations where things will get violent. Which agreed, is much more likely with men. If a man becomes violent and aggressive with you, walking away is just as likely and viable an option as it is with a woman. If anyone, regardless of gender, chooses to begin the violence they loose any ability to claim being a victim of anything. I'm 4'11" and about 98 lbs; if I choose to get into the face of and punch Dexter Lawrence for example, if he punches me back I would have deserved it. Now, it would absolutely not be the right thing for him to do, but it would be my own GD fault and I should be charged with assault. Now if the situation were different and it was you instead of me, him hitting you back would be the wrong way to deal with it and you should be charged with assault as well. So I really don't see why this is a gendered issue. Violence is nearly always the wrong answer and gender doesn't factor into it. 2-As a public figure the standard for libel is much lower and the media works around that quite well with their choice of words. "It is being reported that the police report report says........" now they can fill in with whatever they want. I don't think they are doing that in this case, but I am not simply trusting what they say as I am well aware that nothing they say can be trusted anymore. And you haven't been able to trust it for a very, very long time. Well before I was born anyway. When news became entertainment, all journalistic integrity became as common as honesty in politics. An argument is a discussion. It doesn't have to be contemptible or insulting to be an argument. A simple disagreement is still an argument.
1 - We are basing this on gender because it was an act by one gender on another AND the point that I was making that women are much less prone to sudden violence, making it easier to defuse or walk away before it or she becomes violent. Where as with 2 men it isn't always easy to just walk away because sometimes a man's first reaction is violence, in which you are forced to defend yourself. I agree that if a woman suddenly just punches a man in the face, she should be prepared to be hit back... but I also believe those situations are extremely rare.
2- When the media is reporting that a public figure committed a heinous act such as the one Moore is accused of, their threshold for libel is almost nonexistent compared to if the media was reporting that he had said something out of line or jay walked...etc etc. In this case, the media had to have all it's ducks in a row before it could make the report public.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 18, 2019 14:11:24 GMT -5
This isn't an argument, it's a discussion. 1-Each individual situation is different. Yes, men are more likely to become violent. However, what I said was that situations where the BEST course of action is violence are exceptionally rare, regardless of gender. Which is different than situations where things will get violent. Which agreed, is much more likely with men. If a man becomes violent and aggressive with you, walking away is just as likely and viable an option as it is with a woman. If anyone, regardless of gender, chooses to begin the violence they loose any ability to claim being a victim of anything. I'm 4'11" and about 98 lbs; if I choose to get into the face of and punch Dexter Lawrence for example, if he punches me back I would have deserved it. Now, it would absolutely not be the right thing for him to do, but it would be my own GD fault and I should be charged with assault. Now if the situation were different and it was you instead of me, him hitting you back would be the wrong way to deal with it and you should be charged with assault as well. So I really don't see why this is a gendered issue. Violence is nearly always the wrong answer and gender doesn't factor into it. 2-As a public figure the standard for libel is much lower and the media works around that quite well with their choice of words. "It is being reported that the police report report says........" now they can fill in with whatever they want. I don't think they are doing that in this case, but I am not simply trusting what they say as I am well aware that nothing they say can be trusted anymore. And you haven't been able to trust it for a very, very long time. Well before I was born anyway. When news became entertainment, all journalistic integrity became as common as honesty in politics. An argument is a discussion. It doesn't have to be contemptible or insulting to be an argument. A simple disagreement is still an argument.
1 - We are basing this on gender because it was an act by one gender on another AND the point that I was making that women are much less prone to sudden violence, making it easier to defuse or walk away before it or she becomes violent. Where as with 2 men it isn't always easy to just walk away because sometimes a man's first reaction is violence, in which you are forced to defend yourself. I agree that if a woman suddenly just punches a man in the face, she should be prepared to be hit back... but I also believe those situations are extremely rare.
2- When the media is reporting that a public figure committed a heinous act such as the one Moore is accused of, their threshold for libel is almost nonexistent compared to if the media was reporting that he had said something out of line or jay walked...etc etc. In this case, the media had to have all it's ducks in a row before it could make the report public. True 1-None of this I disagreed with, just the part when you said never with a single situational exception. 2-Seen it way too often without retraction, correction or anything. Sorry, not believing the mainstream media on anything. I have an actor friend in California, not a good actor, but he has been on a couple of soap opera's in bit parts....like walking through the background or a single line. Most of his acting income comes from the news networks when they need an opinion from the "man on the street" and need someone to be convincing expressing the opinion they want expressed. Or they need a crowd of people on a scene to make it look like more people care about whatever they are reporting on. I've already told you about what happened locally around a friend that was murdered. Nothing they say can be trusted as truth, they are just trying to sell ad time. If you think they make sure they have "their ducks in a row" then you are just buying what they are selling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 14:58:21 GMT -5
An argument is a discussion. It doesn't have to be contemptible or insulting to be an argument. A simple disagreement is still an argument.
1 - We are basing this on gender because it was an act by one gender on another AND the point that I was making that women are much less prone to sudden violence, making it easier to defuse or walk away before it or she becomes violent. Where as with 2 men it isn't always easy to just walk away because sometimes a man's first reaction is violence, in which you are forced to defend yourself. I agree that if a woman suddenly just punches a man in the face, she should be prepared to be hit back... but I also believe those situations are extremely rare.
2- When the media is reporting that a public figure committed a heinous act such as the one Moore is accused of, their threshold for libel is almost nonexistent compared to if the media was reporting that he had said something out of line or jay walked...etc etc. In this case, the media had to have all it's ducks in a row before it could make the report public. True 1-None of this I disagreed with, just the part when you said never with a single situational exception. 2-Seen it way too often without retraction, correction or anything. Sorry, not believing the mainstream media on anything. I have an actor friend in California, not a good actor, but he has been on a couple of soap opera's in bit parts....like walking through the background or a single line. Most of his acting income comes from the news networks when they need an opinion from the "man on the street" and need someone to be convincing expressing the opinion they want expressed. Or they need a crowd of people on a scene to make it look like more people care about whatever they are reporting on. I've already told you about what happened locally around a friend that was murdered. Nothing they say can be trusted as truth, they are just trying to sell ad time. If you think they make sure they have "their ducks in a row" then you are just buying what they are selling. 1- We've covered that SEVERAL times already. Never vs Extremely rare.
2- So, then why would you say that it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong"? There is a mountain of difference between sensationalizing a story for clicks and reporting what an eye witness and police report says. Moore isn't going to add clicks. Nobody has ever heard of him.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 18, 2019 16:08:15 GMT -5
True 1-None of this I disagreed with, just the part when you said never with a single situational exception. 2-Seen it way too often without retraction, correction or anything. Sorry, not believing the mainstream media on anything. I have an actor friend in California, not a good actor, but he has been on a couple of soap opera's in bit parts....like walking through the background or a single line. Most of his acting income comes from the news networks when they need an opinion from the "man on the street" and need someone to be convincing expressing the opinion they want expressed. Or they need a crowd of people on a scene to make it look like more people care about whatever they are reporting on. I've already told you about what happened locally around a friend that was murdered. Nothing they say can be trusted as truth, they are just trying to sell ad time. If you think they make sure they have "their ducks in a row" then you are just buying what they are selling. 1- We've covered that SEVERAL times already. Never vs Extremely rare.
2- So, then why would you say that it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong"? There is a mountain of difference between sensationalizing a story for clicks and reporting what an eye witness and police report says. Moore isn't going to add clicks. Nobody has ever heard of him.
2-which is why I tend to believe this report...though sometimes "eye witnesses" are not eye witnesses at all. I particularly liked the time a reporter couldn't find anybody willing to be on camera and asked her sound guy to pretend to be an eye witness for a story. Probably would have worked better if he had taken his company issued windbreaker off before he was on camera.
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Jul 18, 2019 18:32:53 GMT -5
1- We've covered that SEVERAL times already. Never vs Extremely rare.
2- So, then why would you say that it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong"? There is a mountain of difference between sensationalizing a story for clicks and reporting what an eye witness and police report says. Moore isn't going to add clicks. Nobody has ever heard of him.
2-which is why I tend to believe this report...though sometimes "eye witnesses" are not eye witnesses at all. I particularly liked the time a reporter couldn't find anybody willing to be on camera and asked her sound guy to pretend to be an eye witness for a story. Probably would have worked better if he had taken his company issued windbreaker off before he was on camera. So I had lunch today with my oily attorney and alleged Patriots fan today. He's in no way giving legal advice here, and is really just bullshitting around. There was no serious discussion or really anything other than goofing around, as you will tell from his take.
He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many. I asked if his office would do an investigation if he were accused. He gave me that one eyebrow raised look. I related what you said about talking to people at the scene, maybe looking for cameras that could have viewed the incident. "You mean witness tampering or tampering with evidence"? It was what he said next that I thought was pretty cool. If there were a recording of the incident and it showed that he did nothing, he would be very concerned if the chain of custody went: a bar owner, to his employer, to the police, and that act may well get it suppressed. And that no cop is gonna talk to him or really anyone about it. Interesting stuff, I thought.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 19, 2019 7:43:48 GMT -5
2-which is why I tend to believe this report...though sometimes "eye witnesses" are not eye witnesses at all. I particularly liked the time a reporter couldn't find anybody willing to be on camera and asked her sound guy to pretend to be an eye witness for a story. Probably would have worked better if he had taken his company issued windbreaker off before he was on camera. So I had lunch today with my oily attorney and alleged Patriots fan today. He's in no way giving legal advice here, and is really just bullshitting around. There was no serious discussion or really anything other than goofing around, as you will tell from his take.
He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many. I asked if his office would do an investigation if he were accused. He gave me that one eyebrow raised look. I related what you said about talking to people at the scene, maybe looking for cameras that could have viewed the incident. "You mean witness tampering or tampering with evidence"? It was what he said next that I thought was pretty cool. If there were a recording of the incident and it showed that he did nothing, he would be very concerned if the chain of custody went: a bar owner, to his employer, to the police, and that act may well get it suppressed. And that no cop is gonna talk to him or really anyone about it. Interesting stuff, I thought. I don't think you were paying attention very well to what I was saying or relating it to the your friend very well. (Or it could simply be I am not clear). If the incident was off-site, you aren't going to speak to witnesses, if it happen on site, you will speak to your customers and employees. Generally how you find out an incident happens in the first place. The police obtained the alley video first when the manager reviewed it when he got in. A digital video doesn't disappear because it was given to the police. I don't think he would suggest a business owner is not allowed to review his own security footage. As far as this "He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many." So exactly what I have been saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 7:58:38 GMT -5
1- We've covered that SEVERAL times already. Never vs Extremely rare.
2- So, then why would you say that it is "significantly more likely that Moore did something wrong"? There is a mountain of difference between sensationalizing a story for clicks and reporting what an eye witness and police report says. Moore isn't going to add clicks. Nobody has ever heard of him.
2-which is why I tend to believe this report...though sometimes "eye witnesses" are not eye witnesses at all. I particularly liked the time a reporter couldn't find anybody willing to be on camera and asked her sound guy to pretend to be an eye witness for a story. Probably would have worked better if he had taken his company issued windbreaker off before he was on camera. That's funny, sad and scary all at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 19, 2019 8:08:47 GMT -5
2-which is why I tend to believe this report...though sometimes "eye witnesses" are not eye witnesses at all. I particularly liked the time a reporter couldn't find anybody willing to be on camera and asked her sound guy to pretend to be an eye witness for a story. Probably would have worked better if he had taken his company issued windbreaker off before he was on camera. That's funny, sad and scary all at the same time. yup
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Jul 19, 2019 8:12:16 GMT -5
So I had lunch today with my oily attorney and alleged Patriots fan today. He's in no way giving legal advice here, and is really just bullshitting around. There was no serious discussion or really anything other than goofing around, as you will tell from his take.
He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many. I asked if his office would do an investigation if he were accused. He gave me that one eyebrow raised look. I related what you said about talking to people at the scene, maybe looking for cameras that could have viewed the incident. "You mean witness tampering or tampering with evidence"? It was what he said next that I thought was pretty cool. If there were a recording of the incident and it showed that he did nothing, he would be very concerned if the chain of custody went: a bar owner, to his employer, to the police, and that act may well get it suppressed. And that no cop is gonna talk to him or really anyone about it. Interesting stuff, I thought. I don't think you were paying attention very well to what I was saying or relating it to the your friend very well. (Or it could simply be I am not clear). If the incident was off-site, you aren't going to speak to witnesses, if it happen on site, you will speak to your customers and employees. Generally how you find out an incident happens in the first place. The police obtained the alley video first when the manager reviewed it when he got in. A digital video doesn't disappear because it was given to the police. I don't think he would suggest a business owner is not allowed to review his own security footage. As far as this "He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many." So exactly what I have been saying. Maybe this wasn't the discussion I thought it was: If something happens on my property, I have every reason to investigate...anything that happens off my properties is beyond my control and no investigation is possible. Of course I investigate every incident that happens on my property; I have liability issues up the wazoo. My attorney is getting involved, as is my insurance company and any investigators they feel are needed. And no, I made no attempt to be specific with my attorney or even very clear...it wasn't any kind of real discussion of procedures and policies.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Jul 19, 2019 8:37:29 GMT -5
I don't think you were paying attention very well to what I was saying or relating it to the your friend very well. (Or it could simply be I am not clear). If the incident was off-site, you aren't going to speak to witnesses, if it happen on site, you will speak to your customers and employees. Generally how you find out an incident happens in the first place. The police obtained the alley video first when the manager reviewed it when he got in. A digital video doesn't disappear because it was given to the police. I don't think he would suggest a business owner is not allowed to review his own security footage. As far as this "He said, and I am condensing here; suspended means soon to be fired, that the golden opportunity for me is to rehire him if it turns out to be a scam but standing by him is the same as me standing on her neck in the eyes of many." So exactly what I have been saying. Maybe this wasn't the discussion I thought it was: If something happens on my property, I have every reason to investigate...anything that happens off my properties is beyond my control and no investigation is possible. Of course I investigate every incident that happens on my property; I have liability issues up the wazoo. My attorney is getting involved, as is my insurance company and any investigators they feel are needed. And no, I made no attempt to be specific with my attorney or even very clear...it wasn't any kind of real discussion of procedures and policies. It seems this got a bit more out of hand than it needed to, my fault probably. My only issues in this discussion were that some suggested that the Giants should just cut him now and not suspend him. I feel suspending is sensible and common practice to find out if the accusation is utter BS or not before cutting him. If it isn't BS, being cut from the Giants should be the least of his concerns. The other was the assumption that just because the news reported what happened means that is what happened. While in this case I don't see the motivation to fabricate all of this and it likely isn't the case, it is never advisable to rule this out completely.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Aug 15, 2019 12:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SG88 on Aug 15, 2019 12:18:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the update. I hadn't heard anything new about this. A clear win for Moore's case.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Aug 15, 2019 12:23:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the update. I hadn't heard anything new about this. A clear win for Moore's case. No problem. Figured folks would be interested. I find it better to wait for the process to work through before making judgment. Still doesn't mean he didn't do it yet, but it makes him having done it less likely.
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Aug 15, 2019 12:38:20 GMT -5
I saw that article a few minutes ago. What a strange situation altogether!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2019 12:58:21 GMT -5
Well, I stand corrected. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Aug 15, 2019 15:03:03 GMT -5
Well, I stand corrected. My apologies. Meh, no need to apologize. Still doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just consider this situation next time something is reported and you are tempted to jump to conclusions. I've learned my lessons on these types of things many times over. Still fall into the trap though.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on Aug 15, 2019 16:21:05 GMT -5
Honest question, so where does this leave Moore and the Giants? Same, he's suspended. They have not dismissed the charges against him yet.
|
|
|
Post by EliDaGoat713 on Aug 15, 2019 18:34:35 GMT -5
How is he still on this team? He was horrible last year. Remember that long td he let Crowder run in the week 14 game against Washington?
|
|
|
Post by Delicreep on Aug 15, 2019 20:15:01 GMT -5
Interesting. So if he were a top flight player, would he be welcomed back?
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on Aug 16, 2019 0:46:47 GMT -5
Interesting. So if he were a top flight player, would he be welcomed back? This is one of those rhetorical questions, right?
|
|
|
Post by Fletch842 on Aug 16, 2019 5:46:52 GMT -5
Interesting. So if he were a top flight player, would he be welcomed back? This is one of those rhetorical questions, right? Given that its in the NFL, absolutely... OBJ emoji
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:41:17 GMT -5
Once it became public, both men received the same treatment, regardless of skin color. You need to stop arguing with someone that has no ability to comprehend what it is you're saying. I didn't say skin color bobo , i said favoritism for his ability and how much the team needed him. for example Barkley would get more of a pass than a 3rd string player.
|
|