Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 364
  1. #226
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    I mean, there's a difference there. Can't just force some sort of parallelity just for the sake of it.
    Not sure what of this sounds like opinion:

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    No, you're just being a stubborn butt and would rather believe they're in cahoots about the entire thing.

    They all were obviously refraining from detailing the reasoning behind it directly after the event. Kitchens alluded to there being reasoning, Garrett alluded to it, and Dorsey alluded to it, all directly after the incident. They said that Myles was completely open about everything. Like... what more do you need? Are you the type of guy that need video evidence of your wife banging some other dude after finding a condom in your bed?

    No matter how much you WANT it to be inconsistent, it is nowhere near that. Just because you disagree with Myles's way of handling this does not mean that it's inconsistent and that's clearly the issue you're having.

    This does NOT mean Myles is right and Mason said that - I believe I've been more down the middle on this than most have been on this. But you're reaching trying to find some inconsistency here and there just isn't.



    No, the suspension was indefinite and appeal denied because Myles committed an egregious act. Stop twisting **** just to try to prove some silly conspiracy theory.



    Because the moment he say that very statement, the world crushes him for not being accountable for his actions. What's so difficult to understand about this?
    Open about what? Again, the closest thing i've seen to a confirmed account of what Garrett said is today's article mentioning Dorsey. No one to that point has said Garrett told me Rudolph used a derogatory term. You're absolutely taken Garrett's account as gospel btw.

    An egregious act that could have had reasons to reduce it if there was any credibility to what Garrett said. There wasn't. We see NFL suspensions reduced all the time. I'm sure if there was proof that Rudolph called him the N-word that would have played a part in the suspension length and appeal of it.

    That's your opinion. You can still be accountable for your actions and in the same vein, the other party be mostly
    culpable for the actions taken. I know if someone called me a derogatory slur, a crowd of people heard it, and I beat the **** out of the guy, many people would say "Well he had that coming to him".The legal system in this
    country uses mitigating factors when determining lengths or severity of punishment (when proven). The NFL doesn't? Of course it would.
    Last edited by metswon69; 02-17-2020 at 11:02 PM.

  3. #228
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Bruh, these cats will take audio evidence and twist it into something else if they can. MaYbE hE sAiD sTuPiD PIGGER!!11
    Again nice try. I'm not that obstinate. I'm aware that if something sounds like the N-word then yeah it was, especially something that led to a player hitting another player with a helmet.

  4. #229
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Not sure what of this sounds like opinion:
    War,

    Are you listening to what you're saying? Mike Tomlin is saying that no one told him (or the media) of Myles's claim of a slur being said. No evidence was presented. So he believes nothing was said.

    Fine.

    Dorsey came out after that and said, "Myles told US. Me, some of our coaches, and Ogunjobi."

    And you're sitting there trying to draw some kind of confliction between those statements as if they can't both be true? Or that because people are saying whatever to Tomlin expressing an opinion (that Mason is telling the truth) that they shouldn't believe Dorsey when he only said that he and his people were informed of it right after?

    One is an opinion, one is a statement about an actual event.

    If you want to present Tomlin's side as fact, then where does that take you? Who cares that the Browns didn't tell Tomlin of the reasoning behind it? Hell, they didn't tell me or my grandma either, so should we assume that it didn't happen or that Dorsey's statement that Myles DID tell people isn't true?

    lol come on, dude
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  5. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    War,

    Are you listening to what you're saying? Mike Tomlin is saying that no one told him (or the media) of Myles's claim of a slur being said. No evidence was presented. So he believes nothing was said.

    Fine.

    Dorsey came out after that and said, "Myles told US. Me, some of our coaches, and Ogunjobi."

    And you're sitting there trying to draw some kind of confliction between those statements as if they can't both be true? Or that because people are saying whatever to Tomlin expressing an opinion (that Mason is telling the truth) that they shouldn't believe Dorsey when he only said that he and his people were informed of it right after?

    One is an opinion, one is a statement about an actual event.

    If you want to present Tomlin's side as fact, then where does that take you? Who cares that the Browns didn't tell Tomlin of the reasoning behind it? Hell, they didn't tell me or my grandma either, so should we assume that it didn't happen or that Dorsey's statement that Myles DID tell people isn't true?

    lol come on, dude
    Ok.

  6. #231
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Open about what?
    I don't know, read between the lines? They said open about everything. I don't know how you auto-assume that there's an inconsistency there when there's a clear line of consistency. You just didn't know everything at the time.

    You're essentially screaming inconsistency because information was withheld from you, and you're auto-assuming that because it wasn't explicitly said (though hinted that there was a definite reason behind Myles's actions), then they're all in cahoots and trying to cover up for it.

    Again, the closest thing i've seen to a confirmed account of what Garrett said is today's article mentioning Dorsey. No one to that point has said Garrett told me Rudolph used a derogatory term. You're absolutely taken Garrett's account as gospel btw.
    Nevermind the fact that you seemingly can't read between the lines, even if you want to entertain the idea that they may all be in cahoots and lying, why are you so convinced that that IS the case? Why are you ignoring a line/path of possible consistency?

    Makes no sense to me.

    An egregious act that could have had reasons to reduce it if there was any credibility to what Garrett said. There wasn't. We see NFL suspensions reduced all the time. I'm sure if there was proof that Rudolph called him the N-word that would have played a part in the suspension length and appeal of it.
    So because they didn't reduce the suspension, this convinces you that nothing was said?

    That's your opinion. You can still be accountable for your actions and in the same vein, the other party be mostly
    culpable for the actions taken. I know if someone called me a derogatory slur, a crowd of people heard it, and I beat the **** out of the guy, many people would say "Well he had that coming to him".The legal system in this
    country uses mitigating factors when determining lengths or severity of punishment (when proven). The NFL doesn't? Of course it would.
    I can somewhat see your line of reasoning with everything else (though I disagree), but this paragraph makes me curious and I can't disagree more. You claim it's my opinion but immediately start projecting your own belief and your own way of reacting and saying, "Because he didn't do it my way, he's probably lying."

    That boggles my mind. I'd love to explain why but I get the feeling you're not really in for that sort of discussion.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  7. #232
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Ok.
    Lol believe what you want, fam. Nothing wrong with it. But it's so obvious that discounting Dorsey's (who is no longer affiliated with the Browns) statement is just a relentless effort to tear down Garrett's credibility.

    Maybe Myles misheard, or maybe Myles is lying about the entire thing. But suggesting Kitchens, Dorsey, Ogunjobi, and other coaches are in cahoots (not saying you are doing this, but your homeboy sure is) to try to pretend that Myles told them when he didn't... that's just madness at this point.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  8. #233
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Again nice try. I'm not that obstinate. I'm aware that if something sounds like the N-word then yeah it was, especially something that led to a player hitting another player with a helmet.
    I'm just ****ing with you, but yeah, people do that pretty often.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  9. #234
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    I don't know, read between the lines? They said open about everything. I don't know how you auto-assume that there's an inconsistency there when there's a clear line of consistency. You just didn't know everything at the time.

    You're essentially screaming inconsistency because information was withheld from you, and you're auto-assuming that because it wasn't explicitly said (though hinted that there was a definite reason behind Myles's actions), then they're all in cahoots and trying to cover up for it.



    Nevermind the fact that you seemingly can't read between the lines, even if you want to entertain the idea that they may all be in cahoots and lying, why are you so convinced that that IS the case? Why are you ignoring a line/path of possible consistency?

    Makes no sense to me.



    So because they didn't reduce the suspension, this convinces you that nothing was said?



    I can somewhat see your line of reasoning with everything else (though I disagree), but this paragraph makes me curious and I can't disagree more. You claim it's my opinion but immediately start projecting your own belief and your own way of reacting and saying, "Because he didn't do it my way, he's probably lying."

    That boggles my mind. I'd love to explain why but I get the feeling you're not really in for that sort of discussion.
    If you're going to accuse someone of being a racist, you have to do better than "read between the lines". That's a heavy weight to drop on someone without direct evidence or for that matter, an exact account of what was said.

    Because the accusation of Garrett saying it was a racist term didn't become of public knowledge until after the hearing. That's why. I would expect someone who is a victim of that to at least elude to it when questioned. At least to plant the seed that there was some justification for his violent act.

    No, I'm convinced nothing racist was said because there is no proof something racist was said. Its Garrett's word and not a shred of evidence elsewhere. Do you understand that?

    You can disagree but I absolutely believe mitigating circumstances (if proven) could have changed Garrett's suspension. I know if I heard someone use hateful language and that resulted in that someone getting their *** kicked, I would be a lot more sympathetic to the person committing the action. It absolutely changes my mind on how severe the penalty should be. I know I'm not the only person who feels that way either. If it applies in law, it can certainly apply in how the NFL handles matters.
    Last edited by metswon69; 02-17-2020 at 11:28 PM.

  10. #235
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Lol believe what you want, fam. Nothing wrong with it. But it's so obvious that discounting Dorsey's (who is no longer affiliated with the Browns) statement is just a relentless effort to tear down Garrett's credibility.

    Maybe Myles misheard, or maybe Myles is lying about the entire thing. But suggesting Kitchens, Dorsey, Ogunjobi, and other coaches are in cahoots (not saying you are doing this, but your homeboy sure is) to try to pretend that Myles told them when he didn't... that's just madness at this point.
    Just saying ok. Ok. And I dunno why you're lumping metswon69 and I as "homeboy"'s. But Tomlin's point is pretty clear; no one on the field, around them can corroborate the accusation, and he is pissed that no one within the Brown's organization mentioned it when asked.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    If you're going to accuse someone of being a racist, you have to do better than "read between the lines". That's a heavy weight to drop on someone without direct evidence or for that matter, any exact account of what was said. For all we know it could have been personal, not racist, and that explained for Garrett's frustration.
    Is it possible that Garrett didn't intend to publicly state that reason, because he believed that it was shine a negative "race card" light on him that makes him look less apologetic for his terrible action?

    Stop for a moment... stop thinking about what YOU would've done or what YOU think should have been done. Can you not understand the logic behind wanting to withhold racial slur accusations following such a catastrophic (head-bash) event? Or the fact that he might be so appalled by his actions and shameful of his reaction that he wanted to apologize and leave it there?

    The entire problem with your position right now is you're projecting what YOU think should have been done and acting like there isn't another line of consistent thought/action, and collecting all of that to just auto-assume he is lying. Can you respond to this?

    Because the accusation of Garrett saying it was a racist term didn't become of public knowledge until after the hearing. That's why. I would also expect someone to say something along those lines when asked beforehand. At least to plant the seed that there was some justification for his violent act.
    See above. And maybe he thought he was planting the seed without hinting at the race card.

    No, I'm convinced nothing was said because there is no proof something was said. Its Garrett's word and not a shred of evidence elsewhere. Do you understand that?
    So if I murder someone and no one find a shred of evidence, then it didn't happen? Lol please don't open that can of worms dude. Maybe take some time before responding to think about it?

    This is a horrible line from you - I'll let you retry this one.

    You can disagree but I absolutely believe mitigating circumstances (if proven) could have changed Garrett's suspension. I know if I heard someone use hateful language and that resulted in that someone getting their *** kicked, I would be a lot more sympathetic to the person committing the action. It absolutely changes my mind on how severe the penalty should be. I know I'm not the only person who feels that way either.
    Yet again, you're projecting yourself, your opinion, and saying, "Just because it didn't happen this way and Garrett didn't take the action I would have found more believable, means that he's lying."

    That's not an objective way to view a situation like this, or any one in life, to be honest.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  12. #237
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    9,933
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Just saying ok. Ok. And I dunno why you're lumping metswon69 and I as "homeboy"'s. But Tomlin's point is pretty clear; no one on the field, around them can corroborate the accusation, and he is pissed that no one within the Brown's organization mentioned it when asked.
    He's your homeboy. I'm convinced because there is no evidence that you aren't.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  13. #238
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Is it possible that Garrett didn't intend to publicly state that reason, because he believed that it was shine a negative "race card" light on him that makes him look less apologetic for his terrible action?
    Quick point here on the didn't want to intent to publicly state the reason, then why in right after the game tell reporters to find something. So my just issue is people want to say he had a right to privacy in accusing, and that he wanted people to find what set him off, knowing he wanted them to find a racial slur.

    And this is my opinion on it: it would have never stayed private. Let's say the investigation right away turned up that something was caught audio wise, then maybe Mason gets suspended after everyone else, possibly gets cut, and maybe Myles sees a reduction. Well the NFL/Steelers would have to answer why those things happened. They're going to ask FOX, NFL Network, Westwood One, NFL Radio, Steelers players, Browns players, Refs what they heard; because Myles wasn't going to be just saying it was said and the NFL taking it at his word, so the circle of who knows about the accusation was going to quickly grow and leak even easier. As a public figure, it's hard to accuse another public figure of being racist in private.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    19,778
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Better than believing someone's account of something as gospel with little to no evidence to back it up. Quick to call someone a racist, which is a life changing accusation, with nothing as proof. Dumb cancel culture at its finest.
    I don't believe that he did or didn't and I've said that multiple times. But his story hasn't changed. It's just ridiculous to me that people like are so sure Rudolph didn't say anything when his actions that night show that he was at least capable of saying it. And this has nothing to do with cancel culture at all...

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    Is it possible that Garrett didn't intend to publicly state that reason, because he believed that it was shine a negative "race card" light on him that makes him look less apologetic for his terrible action?

    Stop for a moment... stop thinking about what YOU would've done or what YOU think should have been done. Can you not understand the logic behind wanting to withhold racial slur accusations following such a catastrophic (head-bash) event? Or the fact that he might be so appalled by his actions and shameful of his reaction that he wanted to apologize and leave it there?

    The entire problem with your position right now is you're projecting what YOU think should have been done and acting like there isn't another line of consistent thought/action, and collecting all of that to just auto-assume he is lying. Can you respond to this?



    See above. And maybe he thought he was planting the seed without hinting at the race card.



    So if I murder someone and no one find a shred of evidence, then it didn't happen? Lol please don't open that can of worms dude. Maybe take some time before responding to think about it?

    This is a horrible line from you - I'll let you retry this one.



    Yet again, you're projecting yourself, your opinion, and saying, "Just because it didn't happen this way and Garrett didn't take the action I would have found more believable, means that he's lying."

    That's not an objective way to view a situation like this, or any one in life, to be honest.
    You know what I meant. There's no evidence a racial slur was used besides the account of one man. Sure, there were words exchanged. That's obvious. The content of those words are impossible to prove though (until they aren't). There are no recordings, no first hand accounts, etc. Just Garrett and hearsay.

    No, I'm not dismissing the possibility entirely. I just won't say for certain that the N-word was used. That's the difference between my argument and yours, NBA's, etc. This is a matter of you believing his account. I don't and yes the way in which details came to the surface, how they did, when they did, matters to how truthful the account is imo. I'm saying the mitigating circumstances could have absolutely helped his cause. You want to believe otherwise, fine.

    The murder stuff is a funny metaphor btw. You're essentially equating it to Rudolph is a racist and used the n-word because of what we assume we know. Meanwhile a murderer has to actually murder someone to be categorized as one. You see how that works?

    Like I said, you can change the subject all you want but if you're going to accuse someone of being that, you need to do better than "read between the lines". That's an assault on someone's character.

    I'm telling you from a personal perspective what my reaction would be. Meanwhile you've been telling me that if he had come out with this the night of the incident that people would have crucified him as it being an excuse. How do you know that? Isn't that you own projections? Sure some people would feel that way. Just like some people would say "Hey, if he called me the n-word, i would have popped that mother****er too".

Page 16 of 25 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •