Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Your team has a worse history with this shit than the Raiders, and all they ever do is excuse it and ignore it. That's exactly what Tom is doing here. Not giving a shit.
errr...what? Worse history with what shit?
Originally Posted by :
Can he catch passes or not? That's all they care about.
The national media talks about the Chiefs not giving a fuck about character, yet look at the Patriots.
It's also possible that some learned from the Tyreek situation, just as some ON HERE have done, so they're going to wait just a second and a half to reserve judgment before going crazy.
FTR, I never went crazy on Hill either. Never said you guys should cut him. Especially since it was offseason. No reason at all not to wait and let the facts develop a bit before making critical decisions. One woman has made some serious claims, but there are some concerns -- the allegations are quite dated, the relationship with the woman appears to have been consensual for at least part of the time, etc.
The news also came out very recently. There's no reason to rush. I'm fine if they decide to cut him, but waiting to see how things develop for a bit is fine too. [Reply]
It's also possible that some learned from the Tyreek situation, just as some ON HERE have done, so they're going to wait just a second and a half to reserve judgment before going crazy.
Originally Posted by Amnorix: :-) I understand. The hatred runs deep so everything is viewed through that prism. Fair enough.
More like the only people who really learned from the Tyreek Hill situation were Chiefs fans. The rest of the NFL world thinks he's a woman abusing, child arm breaking asshole who the NFL wrongly cleared. [Reply]
I read the Antonio Brown complaint. I found these bits interesting and potentially corroborative of the accuser's story:
Paragraph 37: accuser called her mom contemporaneously right after the first alleged assault. Mom, although not unbiased, could be a corroborating witness.
Paragraph 38: accuser also confided contemporaneously about the assault with Brown's chef. Although the complaint says the accuser "befriended" the chef, that person would be a more unbiased witness.
Paragraph 52: another "known football player" was with the accuser and Brown the night of the alleged rape in Miami. I wonder who that person is? Seems like a likely candidate for questioning by the NFL's investigators.
Originally Posted by FAX:
Had I taken the time to actually read through the entire thread, I would have left this alone, Mr. arrwheader. I even thought about deleting my post after reading further through the thread, but I didn't see any major grammatical errors, so I just ... couldn't ... do ... it.
Anyway, it's a confusing rule the Feds have. I suppose they do it in order to allow cases to proceed while reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits for a buck here and a ten-spot there. One would think the baseline would be higher, but attorneys make those rules and you know what attorneys are like. Any case is better than no case to those guys.
FAX
Roger that, no big deal. Appreciate the correction! Not my intention to spread bad information and i'm honored to be corrected, if by any, the great Mr. FAX.
Mr. Fax has excellent takes and seems level headed. Much respected by me. [Reply]
The universe has a beautiful way of coming full circle.
Watching Pats fans who said “you’re victim blaming” to people who said “Idk man, Crystal kinda seems like she could be lying” now saying “AB didn’t do it, THIS IS EXTORTION, the girl is obviously lying. Too funny. [Reply]
