NFL Lockout Stay Granted

[CCBoy]

Not really. They already know that the odds are against them on the lockout. That is not the same issue before the NLRB though. If the decertification is legit, then the anti-trust continues.

There are more issues than that boiled down turnip to a dish. There are degrees of harm, court histories, as well as legislative intent previous to current court rulings. If those aren't addressed in specificity, then that extends judicial review, probably, into years before a definitive remedy is arrived at. Beyond cash flows desired by players, and not the grand, or noble, cause de jure by Smith, or attaching Unions.

Here, it still is logically more relevant to leave being born into royalty alone and negotiate a settlement in CBA and move along as Hos has remained adamount through all the intervening meanderins on any seleced topic contrived by a multitude of assailants on other issues.

 

[CCBoy]

Posters do an inordinate amount of bellyaching over CCboy's writing style. However, most of the technical criticisms directed at him aren't even correct.

Does his verbosity interfere with his message? Yes. But that's his decision. If it bothers you, there's no need to call him out. Send him a private message, or ignore his posts.

Lol, Scorp, but does this also mean they don't glean that being a social creature I utilize humor as a medium of expression rather than an animal developed instinct as a soldier through two prominant periods of war in my career, and would rather like to instinctively rip their ****ing heads off and piss down the nubs and state, NOW CARRY ON? Golly gee, I think you hit upon something, my friend.

 

[Merlin]

There are more issues than that boiled down turnip to a dish. There are degrees of harm, court histories, as well as legislative intent previous to current court rulings. If those aren't addressed in specificity, then that extends judicial review, probably, into years before a definitive remedy is arrived at. Beyond cash flows desired by players, and not the grand, or noble, cause de jure by Smith, or attaching Unions.

Here, it still is logically more relevant to leave being born into royalty alone and negotiate a settlement in CBA and move along as Hos has remained adamount through all the intervening meanderins on any seleced topic contrived by a multitude of assailants on other issues.

How much does the great Hos think that Doty will award the player in TV revenue lawsuit? Or does he think the owners will win that too because of DeMaurice Smith?

 

[kmd24]

Oh, and you and Fuzzy have GOT to get down this ignore part and are JUST NOT GOING TO RESPOND THINGY down more pat.

Since you're calling me out, I'll clarify that I did not say that I was going to ignore you, but rather that I wasn't going to spend extra effort trying to tease out a meaning when I can't understand you.

I reserve the right to respond whenever and however I see fit.

Cheers.

 

[CCBoy]

Lol, Scorp, but does this also mean they don't glean that being a social creature I utilize humor as a medium of expression rather than an animal developed instinct as a soldier through two prominant periods of war in my career, and would rather like to instinctively rip their ****ing heads off and piss down the nubs and state, NOW CARRY ON? Golly gee, I think you hit upon something, my friend.

Look, would you put full energies and career path on the line with a belief in the following and current advertisement? To wit:

However, a breakthrough discovery is changing everything. Researchers in Cambridge, MA have discovered a new compound of all-natural ingredients that promises to relieve joint discomfort, improve mobility, and in some cases protect the actual joints themselves. The new proprietary formula, branded under the trademark Instaflex Joint Support includes ingredients with clinical trials nothing short of amazing.

Then why do many of you guys rush to attach to similar claims by a newly entrenched Trial Lawyer who is now the head of a Union? Even when specifics of blatantly wrong disclaimers are part of that team's retort on a variety issues as well.

They are hoping against all cause, that they will be found in possession of an inviolatable golden nugget of being in the path of undeniable right. Well, welcome to a real world that doesn't wage the battle on the basis of privilege and in perpetuity at that.

I once had a single year's income that required an extended table to get right with Uncle Sam. Does that mean, since I was a member of a Union, that I now am guaranteed that high tide mark based upon my being involved simlarly to an anti-trust acceptable group? Why should that, devoid an unexecuted contract, be extended to these NFL players, so as to attempt to jump between administrating elements with a entity of Government itself? Labor or Court? Where does the actual cause for redress measure up with the reality to the entire remainder of the country.

Even in a state that involves an out of court settlement and is encapsulated in a protected entity of a Union's cloak, applications don't even closely approximate the protection claimed and duly being considered in courts, by a player's Association of the NFL.

Look, the exact amounts acquiesced in the last CBA, was the result of a respect for a weathered and long suffering Union member that had long life both directly in the NFL, and as head of a Union that although blundering, was attempting to address the sterness and personal sacrifices of a large volumn of people paving the way for this generatons sophistication as well as privileges.

Neither side will win, with or without success in court, without a future and binding contract between the two sides. That is both the owners and the players. It is in the BEST interest of both to arrive at a forula that is not bound by predicability of a particular slide ruler.

That many even care is more related for a desire to follow the action of the sport, than issues that arise. Here, quality of life is the bottom line, at base level.

Look, if lifeblood of the sport is a relevant issue on the table, then, in the face of gross National strain, players should be well content to improvements, even if at a lower rate as imagined at some point in the past. Hey, the Great Depression was real allright. Ownership flew about as much as the sands in the Dust Bowl. Well, that isn't the case now, but stride can be regained as to top shelf incomes. Believe me, in coparison to life styles of almost ALL other Unions in the Country, they no where approach career plateur levels that players allready possess. Where those levels, which equal far above those total career accmplishments in ALL other Unions are, even at a previously contracted level, are still increasing above levels for ALL OTHER unions. Then I feel that the exuse of that Wizard of Oz located behind the curtain is relevant.

The players allready had on those ruby red slippers from the start. And they aren't the fugitives from justice as they claim. Then also, in process, say that the fans can just yoke the burden and keep on pulling their cart no matter those fans oil and turmoil. As they want the guarantee of a continually escalating rate based upon their previously contractd rates. They are in essence saying, hey, you guys deserve the quality of play by us and need to just keep on suporting revenues to the owners as their gross proceeds feed us. And if we don't get the number of wharehouses needed to keep up with our personal possessions, well, we will just not play. They additionally want to have the courts justify their own life styles that escalate at a given rate.

It boils down to his, despite very huge and significant increases in actual annual salary, they feel they are locked into the concept of gross revenues of that industry as well. The principal, unconnected to a current contract, is like giving governmental validation to a tick.

The contract is the medium of commitment that cements a bussiness arrangement. This jumps to percentage of income of THAT business and claims such right based upon a negotiated right for a role with that business.

They no longer operate on the strength that a worker earns in relation to a view of his actual contribution. It not has evolved to a new binding element not in execution of unexecuted elements, but a co-equal right to income on level of the owner and the entity actually responsible for the life and substinance of that very industry. This exist merely upon the fact of a prior experience and a right of protection which is supposed guarantee a common man's level of respect, health protection, work environments, as well as financial seccurity.

The issue of ownership availability has never even been breeched in such considerations. If there was collusion in roles within the NFL itself, it would involve ability for ownership, and not an increasing level player salaries that improve yearly, whether or not specific team rewards escalate equally.

Since that isn't in litigation, that is not a consideration, but on principal, is diminishes the actual role portrayed as not being included at an equal level, and hence, depriving reasonable inclusion.

Hey, a negotiated contract, or CBA is just that process. Redress for gains, as before. But here, in a reasonable approach, the players want a coup, and to be decared royalty. That just isn't the role of sport.

While some fans solely follow today, for glory of winning and being able to hold that over the fans of other teams, or a gleaned vanity of personal gain more in tune with statistical highlights and media reinforcemets. Well, this poits to a deficiency in the fan today, as well. Not all, but many...who substitude a quarterback percentage or multitude of game by game and changing statistics, for the thrill of excitement in game challenges and human effort and extreme physical exertion and strugge. Too few fans now appreciate a nose to nose strugge throughout whistle to gun. They also don't patiently await a fine drawn line that is turned into a game won advantage and a victory. Now, we espect multitudes of big plays, sacks, and endless Red Zone successes.

The sportsmanship element has left the throngs of many of it's fans. But even worse, the players have lost the soundness of real love of the sport as well as that very element of sportsmanship theirselves. They often are more atune to stars that feel they already are empowered by aspect in their lives, to be fully deserving rewards. In function, they are, but as to motivations, they a real element of men who function in the world of sport and now, envision themselves as boardroom equals but only with their pay.

One loves the role that a Springs gives to a fan's heart. Rightfully so.

One loves the tasking of a Tony Romo, Jason Witten, and DeMarcus Ware a leader in hard times. Rightfully so.

But don't insult my intelligence in the mean time, by referring to a penquin leading a group of principaled lemmings as divinely inspired and full of principals. No matter the characterization of the presence of both an ownership or NFL entity that was the birth for a general set of fairness in the league since it was organized and gone through socialization processes itself.

If that leadership within the Union was so competant and on target with all issues, then why did multiple and former groups have to seek inclusion in considerations to gain forum to begin with?

One can attempt to go in circular motions all day long, and delay real discernment of motives involved. One can stop questioning with an endless legalise recourse, but eventually, someone will identify the malfunction and ask simply...why?

But as with a fan, which was Hostile's point of contention throughout, don't upfront lie to a fan, and tell him you are doing this for him. You see, a fan loved the sport before the players became rich, and self-serving in a sporting role. Those two elements don't mix well.

 

[CCBoy]

Since you're calling me out, I'll clarify that I did not say that I was going to ignore you, but rather that I wasn't going to spend extra effort trying to tease out a meaning when I can't understand you.

I reserve the right to respond whenever and however I see fit.

Cheers.

No, you have restated multiple previous posts on direction and roles. I don't have a problem that remains on issue in the past. Move on, as in Kismet, the writing hand once having written, moves on.

I called out specific points, not your value as a contributor beyond that consideration. I did it with a demonstrated and exagerated format, so that finely articulated line would not be an immediately be established. When insult was added, it was returned.

On a point of specific misunderstanding, ask anyone a defining of such. There really arnen't many people who have worked successfully throug public, and then collegiate levels that are incapable of expression points of their own observations.

More specificly, you resorted to insultive characature and association with ineptness due to style. When that was returned in similar fashion with added artistry, you felt incenses. That also can be a learning process, and prima facie failure in a person.

Don't forget, when on amuses himself in discussion, he should at least continue the discussive element in a realistic and based upon realistic principal. I rarely attempt a discussion of a topic that I don't first run value the a personally refernced sense of appropriate.

I was a soldier. I know, you are tired of hearing a comparison. But all soldiers share a burden of extremity in experiences that are endured, and not walked away from by commitment. They all share a common bond, they veil the raw feelings that shape personality and deep response mechanism that coexist with instinct, extreme environments, and unmeasured hostility and recourses.

That doesn't mean they are social marred or unable to intellectually direct manageable directions while under duress. That additionally doesn't mean their personal emotions are diminished as well as deep set compassion and respects. They have those as well. But the vehicle to unleash those sacrificed personal qualities, it often takes a humor to release such emotions, and even feelings. That is a measured as well as trained response through intense necessity, to a withdrawal or escape by a choice or selection process. We, as Veterans, were instructed in a scale of duty that required the conceptualization of first, one rolls over, then he eats ****, then he dies...but in THAT order. Myself, I don't just jump ****, and go through flight responses.

On the contrary, my responses are many and varied as well. I continue along topic development to reach objectives. I do adapt styles and attitudes behind them as well.

It seems that all along my military career that I was taken from combat duties and roles and put in an instruction capacity. I was in a training/instructor's role in Basic/Entry level for about eight years and then taken to the level of combat related topics to entry level Officers.

I was probaly subjected to an environment directly involved with developing, dealing with, and instructing entry level troops. I daily interacted with that subject group on a continual basis and in cyclable manner over years. I probably came into more direct contact with **** house lawyers, mispent youths, posturing fakes, and attitudinal misdirected youths than one probably encounters in a lifetime on the block.

That doesn't serve to poison discussion. It just adds tools that survive and identify that level of relating and values thusly associated...not in base levels of ability to commincate in more formalized formats. Those are retained in contact through a person's experiences and references as well.

Now, you were trying to shuck and jive, and seek approval for cause...but I returned yet another style, that you again didn't wish. But I did this as well, for a purpose, and you have no part in that selection, as that falls to a person's right to select format that he attempts to format for himself. I deny not this aspect in yourself, but if you mistate my efforts, or don't understand, that doesn't mean that I stop doing MY thing....for the record here.

But a suggestion, move on and don't tie yourself down to argument because you supposedly don't understand or another's style. He is merely expressing what he sees. If unproved that can be useful to yourself, even if you don't then and there undersand the context presented. Patsy Cline doesn't mean the same to you that she does to someone who has experienced that period of time along with myself. That, although, doesn't invalidate the genuineness of those experiences...but you don't see my rushing on a crusade of personal origins to gain compliance the ease of my own views.

But the difference of your motives and mine, are that when politeness is first breached by another, I will defend my intents.

Intents are not explained briefly when confronted with a name calling attachment.

You failed at onset, include a description of brevity, simplicity, or topical short liners. Which is the direction of your objections. But that is a matter that doesn additionally include considerations of descriptive elements as to direced intent as well as degree of appication in addition. To do this fluidly and very articulated, thus saving time and attention span, complex words are developed and utilized. This isn't nearly as demeaning or unuseful as you imply it is. Specificity is just that, and there are hundreds of ways to use a variety of words to describe the same topical containment. That doesn't inalidate or make inappropriate the use of words you don't recall, or associate with. That takes time to either give you that meaning, or adapt to your own particular referenced point.

As to board personalities, there is a rather large group of present and even larger former posters here, that glorified insult, their own and pompous glorification, and a near artform of unrestained insult and high ground brow beats. A was a soldier, and don't bend a knee to a brow beat at any intervening level of authority on that basis alone.

If one truely takes the Bible to heart, it instructs one to bend no knee to man, but unto the lord. That doesn't mean that one can not be humble enough to be reasonable as to their own intents and motivations.

If you wish to discuss topic, and are genuine, personality won't even be a hint of consideration, as more than likely I am already attempting to contribute more than are you. I have a deep sense of accountability and directed initiative...but those are merely forged by my own past and experiences, not a priortized and self-portrayed insensement of feeling of betterment. That is work. That Bible also states that a man shall earn the meals on his table by the sweat of his brow. I attempt to fullfill as well.

But don't ever be foolish enough to request that I follow the paths that another selects for me, in traveling my journies. All journies are not equal. And if you were wise, would identify that even a person WERE a fool, he has his own story and dignity in it's telling as well.

 

[CCBoy]

How much does the great Hos think that Doty will award the player in TV revenue lawsuit? Or does he think the owners will win that too because of DeMaurice Smith?

I don't know that for him, maybe you should direct a question of Hostile to that person....

 

[SkinsFan28]

out of all the briefs, I actually found the Amicus brief filed by the other unions to be almost enough to move me to the players side. I think they laid out several good, and real, issues with the NFL's arguments. I did try to read through the whole Brady Class brief, but just wasn't up to it today. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow...

If the owners don't win this appeal, then they will be at the players mercy going forward, that's for sure.

 

[dogberry]

The owners should go pure free market and wait for the uproar from 3 teams dominating the NFL.

 

[speedkilz88]

The owners should go pure free market and wait for the uproar from 3 teams dominating the NFL.

Once the genie is out of the bottle you will have a fine time putting her back in.

 

[Anjinsan]

No, you have restated multiple previous posts on direction and roles. I don't have a problem that remains on issue in the past. Move on, as in Kismet, the writing hand once having written, moves on.

I called out specific points, not your value as a contributor beyond that consideration. I did it with a demonstrated and exagerated format, so that finely articulated line would not be an immediately be established. When insult was added, it was returned.

On a point of specific misunderstanding, ask anyone a defining of such. There really arnen't many people who have worked successfully throug public, and then collegiate levels that are incapable of expression points of their own observations.

More specificly, you resorted to insultive characature and association with ineptness due to style. When that was returned in similar fashion with added artistry, you felt incenses. That also can be a learning process, and prima facie failure in a person.

Don't forget, when on amuses himself in discussion, he should at least continue the discussive element in a realistic and based upon realistic principal. I rarely attempt a discussion of a topic that I don't first run value the a personally refernced sense of appropriate.

I was a soldier. I know, you are tired of hearing a comparison. But all soldiers share a burden of extremity in experiences that are endured, and not walked away from by commitment. They all share a common bond, they veil the raw feelings that shape personality and deep response mechanism that coexist with instinct, extreme environments, and unmeasured hostility and recourses.

That doesn't mean they are social marred or unable to intellectually direct manageable directions while under duress. That additionally doesn't mean their personal emotions are diminished as well as deep set compassion and respects. They have those as well. But the vehicle to unleash those sacrificed personal qualities, it often takes a humor to release such emotions, and even feelings. That is a measured as well as trained response through intense necessity, to a withdrawal or escape by a choice or selection process. We, as Veterans, were instructed in a scale of duty that required the conceptualization of first, one rolls over, then he eats ****, then he dies...but in THAT order. Myself, I don't just jump ****, and go through flight responses.

On the contrary, my responses are many and varied as well. I continue along topic development to reach objectives. I do adapt styles and attitudes behind them as well.

It seems that all along my military career that I was taken from combat duties and roles and put in an instruction capacity. I was in a training/instructor's role in Basic/Entry level for about eight years and then taken to the level of combat related topics to entry level Officers.

I was probaly subjected to an environment directly involved with developing, dealing with, and instructing entry level troops. I daily interacted with that subject group on a continual basis and in cyclable manner over years. I probably came into more direct contact with **** house lawyers, mispent youths, posturing fakes, and attitudinal misdirected youths than one probably encounters in a lifetime on the block.

That doesn't serve to poison discussion. It just adds tools that survive and identify that level of relating and values thusly associated...not in base levels of ability to commincate in more formalized formats. Those are retained in contact through a person's experiences and references as well.

Now, you were trying to shuck and jive, and seek approval for cause...but I returned yet another style, that you again didn't wish. But I did this as well, for a purpose, and you have no part in that selection, as that falls to a person's right to select format that he attempts to format for himself. I deny not this aspect in yourself, but if you mistate my efforts, or don't understand, that doesn't mean that I stop doing MY thing....for the record here.

But a suggestion, move on and don't tie yourself down to argument because you supposedly don't understand or another's style. He is merely expressing what he sees. If unproved that can be useful to yourself, even if you don't then and there undersand the context presented. Patsy Cline doesn't mean the same to you that she does to someone who has experienced that period of time along with myself. That, although, doesn't invalidate the genuineness of those experiences...but you don't see my rushing on a crusade of personal origins to gain compliance the ease of my own views.

But the difference of your motives and mine, are that when politeness is first breached by another, I will defend my intents.

Intents are not explained briefly when confronted with a name calling attachment.

You failed at onset, include a description of brevity, simplicity, or topical short liners. Which is the direction of your objections. But that is a matter that doesn additionally include considerations of descriptive elements as to direced intent as well as degree of appication in addition. To do this fluidly and very articulated, thus saving time and attention span, complex words are developed and utilized. This isn't nearly as demeaning or unuseful as you imply it is. Specificity is just that, and there are hundreds of ways to use a variety of words to describe the same topical containment. That doesn't inalidate or make inappropriate the use of words you don't recall, or associate with. That takes time to either give you that meaning, or adapt to your own particular referenced point.

As to board personalities, there is a rather large group of present and even larger former posters here, that glorified insult, their own and pompous glorification, and a near artform of unrestained insult and high ground brow beats. A was a soldier, and don't bend a knee to a brow beat at any intervening level of authority on that basis alone.

If one truely takes the Bible to heart, it instructs one to bend no knee to man, but unto the lord. That doesn't mean that one can not be humble enough to be reasonable as to their own intents and motivations.

If you wish to discuss topic, and are genuine, personality won't even be a hint of consideration, as more than likely I am already attempting to contribute more than are you. I have a deep sense of accountability and directed initiative...but those are merely forged by my own past and experiences, not a priortized and self-portrayed insensement of feeling of betterment. That is work. That Bible also states that a man shall earn the meals on his table by the sweat of his brow. I attempt to fullfill as well.

But don't ever be foolish enough to request that I follow the paths that another selects for me, in traveling my journies. All journies are not equal. And if you were wise, would identify that even a person WERE a fool, he has his own story and dignity in it's telling as well.

To you use some kind of sentence generator like this?

http://www.watchout4snakes.com/CreativityTools/RandomSentence/RandomSentence.aspx

 

[DeaconBlues]

To you use some kind of sentence generator like this?

http://www.watchout4snakes.com/CreativityTools/RandomSentence/RandomSentence.aspx

:laugh2:

 

[Everlastingxxx]

To you use some kind of sentence generator like this?

http://www.watchout4snakes.com/CreativityTools/RandomSentence/RandomSentence.aspx

That’s funny. I rarely read his posts because i cannot understand them. Although his last few have caught my attention because of all the religious remarks he is making.

 

[1fisher]

I hate to say it but i have to agree with some of the posters and their comments late in this thread.

As a frequent reader, seldom poster, i have to tell you CC that your message is definitely being lost.

I am not one to criticize a persons method of communication, their grammar, or their spelling, particularly strangers on an internet forum, its not my place -- so all i can say is that i started out trying to read your many posts but now i simply scroll past them.

If you naturally write in such a manner than i might suggest a self-analysis of your style as you certainly must understand that your 'message', as i mentioned above, is simply not being taken seriously by quite a few members. There have been numerous threads where various groups have discussed this with you.

You take the time to post a lot of articles, you and the others who do so should be commended, i for one appreciate it, and i certainly apologize for perhaps overstepping any boundaries, but if you want to be taken more seriously on this site i believe you will have to change the delivery somewhat.

Like i say we are all just strangers on the internet, you don't know me from Adam, and i certainly understand that, just a suggestion.

You said it perfectly..... I scroll right past his posts now.

 

[JIGGYFLY]

I hate to say it but i have to agree with some of the posters and their comments late in this thread.

As a frequent reader, seldom poster, i have to tell you CC that your message is definitely being lost.

I am not one to criticize a persons method of communication, their grammar, or their spelling, particularly strangers on an internet forum, its not my place -- so all i can say is that i started out trying to read your many posts but now i simply scroll past them.

If you naturally write in such a manner than i might suggest a self-analysis of your style as you certainly must understand that your 'message', as i mentioned above, is simply not being taken seriously by quite a few members. There have been numerous threads where various groups have discussed this with you.

You take the time to post a lot of articles, you and the others who do so should be commended, i for one appreciate it, and i certainly apologize for perhaps overstepping any boundaries, but if you want to be taken more seriously on this site i believe you will have to change the delivery somewhat.

Like i say we are all just strangers on the internet, you don't know me from Adam, and i certainly understand that, just a suggestion.

Very well said I wanted to say the same thing. I have just stopped even trying to read and understand his post.

I think you handled it with much more tact than I would have hopefully he takes it to heart.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Anytime a thread has gone the way of CCBoy's posts, it has run its course.


*Closed*