NFL will proceed cautiously on Vick

[5Stars]

explain to me the difference between legally guilty and guilty?

Someone needs to take Stautner to the thread where Adam finally explained this exact same thing to Fuzzy...after 20 pages or so! Maybe then he will understand it also...because right now Stautner is proclaiming the exact same thing that Fuzzy was trying to do during the Pacman escapades...and Fuzzy was wrong, too!

 

[Stautner]

Someone needs to take Stautner to the thread where Adam finally explained this exact same thing to Fuzzy...after 20 pages or so! Maybe then he will understand it also...because right now Stautner is proclaiming the exact same thing that Fuzzy was trying to do during the Pacman escapades...and Fuzzy was wrong, too!

Recap it for me. Until then you are just trying to win points with no back up.

As for now I don't see the relevence because I did not make an argument in favor of Pacman when he had his problems and I still don't. 5-6 run-ins with the law in his only year in the NFL is more than enough to take action on the guy. Not to mention Jones has admitted to some wrongdoings in the past.

And the funny thing is that all you guys that think with emotion rather that your head are shockingly blind to the fact that I am not even advocating that the NFL ignore the Vick situation while the legal system runs it's course.

All I've been saying is that they have to be very careful and make sure that they have covvered all their bases before taking action, and that it may be premature to take action just yet ........... but I'm guessing you didn't actually read my posts to realize that.

 

[5Stars]

Recap it for me. Until then you are just trying to win points with no back up.

Go find it and read it for yourself, man! I have no need for "points"...however, you have the need to be corrected, so YOU go find it and read it...then most likely you will come back with your tail between you legs just like Fuzzy had to do.

'Until then, what you are saying is wrong, plain and simple! Go find it, or have a mod find it for you, read it, then come back...

(trying to win points)...shessssh, ridiculous!

 

[Stautner]

Go find it and read it for yourself, man! I have no need for "points"...however, you have the need to be corrected, so YOU go find it and read it...then most likely you will come back with your tail between you legs just like Fuzzy had to do.

'Until then, what you are saying is wrong, plain and simple! Go find it, or have a mod find it for you, read it, then come back...

(trying to win points)...shessssh, ridiculous!

That's BS - trying to refute an argument by citing some thread or writing that may or may not exist is about as bogus as it comes.

If that were acceptable I could just claim that I just read an article written by experts that refutes everyting anyone with a different opinion says, but never produce it or even tell you what it says ....... that would be no less bogus.

If you have a point to make - do so. EXPLAIN your position. If you can't either produce the writing or at least recap what it says then you have no point in bringing it up - you have essentially written nonsense.

 

[5Stars]

If you have a point to make - do so. EXPLAIN your position. If you can't either produce the writing or at least recap what it says then you have no point in bringing it up - you have essentially written nonsense.

Why are you so lazy that you cannot go read it? Why must someone else do your dirty work?

It took Adam most of the night to explain to Fuzzy why he was wrong to think exactely what you are thinking...and Fuzzy is not dumb!

So, if you don't feel the need to do it yourself and then come to a conclusion, that is YOUR fault not mine! If you want educated go find it, otherwise keep thinking what you are thinking is correct...also, notice most people are not even debating you on what you are saying? Because they probably went through this BS in the Pacman case...

Stop arguing so much and go find out for yourself what Summer and a few others have been trying to TEACH you. Don't be lazy and come back with some stupid excuse for not finding and reading it! After reading it, post in it so that it comes back to the first page!

I challenge you! If you don't or do not want to then that is your excuse for now on of being wrong in your position!

Go....

 

[03EBZ06]

That's BS - trying to refute an argument by citing some thread or writing that may or may not exist is about as bogus as it comes.

If that were acceptable I could just claim that I just read an article written by experts that refutes everyting anyone with a different opinion says, but never produce it or even tell you what it says ....... that would be no less bogus.

If you have a point to make - do so. EXPLAIN your position. If you can't either produce the writing or at least recap what it says then you have no point in bringing it up - you have essentially written nonsense.

Why are you so hostile? Your post always comes off like you are a jackarse. Calm down, it's just an internet...sheesh.

 

[Stautner]

Why are you so lazy that you cannot go read it? Why must someone else do your dirty work?

It took Adam most of the night to explain to Fuzzy why he was wrong to think exactely what you are thinking...and Fuzzy is not dumb!

So, if you don't feel the need to do it yourself and then come to a conclusion, that is YOUR fault not mine! If you want educated go find it, otherwise keep thinking what you are thinking is correct...also, notice most people are not even debating you on what you are saying? Because they probably went through this BS in the Pacman case...

Stop arguing so much and go find out for yourself what Summer and a few others have been trying to TEACH you. Don't be lazy and come back with some stupid excuse for not finding and reading it! After reading it, post in it so that it comes back to the first page!

I challenge you! If you don't or do not want to then that is your excuse for now on of being wrong in your position!

Go....

AHHH - you must be at peace to have the mind of a child .........

YOU BROUGHT IT UP, yet you think it's supposed to be incumbant on me to find the informatioin to support you ......?


You have a skewed understanding of how things work - the person who claims to have supporting evidence is the one who is supposed to provide that evidence.

Do you think the federal prosecutors who got the indictment against Michael Vick are now expecting Michael Vick and his attorneys to prove their case for them?


Besides, you didn't even indicate where to find this supposed thread, and since you apparently don't even know what it said then you are failing all the way around.

 

[fortdick]

Drafts and salary caps are traeated as necessary to the function of the league - being able to fire people without cause is not.

Just as the Bell companies couldn't fire people without cause before the breakup, neither can the NFL.

The anti-trust exemption is not an all encompassing exemption from labor laws.

I was just responding to what you said about the NFL having to comply with labor laws. They don't

I have read your arguements and rebuttals. You never respond to the direct issue you get slammed on. You like to dance around the arguements of others and call them stupid.

You need to either read what other people post, or quit commenting on it.

 

[fortdick]

Why are you so hostile? Your post always comes off like you are a jackarse. Calm down, it's just an internet...sheesh.

He is a 15 year old with a Fat Head of Vick on his wall.

 

[Stautner]

I was just responding to what you said about the NFL having to comply with labor laws. They don't

I have read your arguements and rebuttals. You never respond to the direct issue you get slammed on. You like to dance around the arguements of others and call them stupid.

You need to either read what other people post, or quit commenting on it.

If I haven't responded to something directly I'm unaware of it ..... show me where I haven't and I will be happy to do so.

 

[5Stars]

AHHH - you must be at peace to have the mind of a child .........

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88530

For the lazy wrong guy...from the man with the mind of a child!

Get educated, Stautner...now read the whole thing before you come back with more of your BS excuses...save yourself from ridicule...it's in your best interest.

 

[Stautner]

He is a 15 year old with a Fat Head of Vick on his wall.

Well, such a mature response from someone so much older than myself ......

I guess you have missed the multiple times that I have said the league should come down hard on Vick once they are comfortable that their is sufficient evidence to support making that decision.

And you claim I don't respond directly to what is said ........

 

[fortdick]

Well, such a mature response from someone so much older than myself ......

I guess you have missed the multiple times that I have said the league should come down hard on Vick once they are comfortable that their is sufficient evidence to support making that decision.

And you claim I don't respond directly to what is said ........

Dude, you don't!

How many times do you hae to be told that the NFL is exempt from traditional labor laws? You just keep spouting of about your own opinion without even responding to others points.

Reflect a bit, do some research, then try to reengage.

 

[5Stars]

Dude, you don't!

How many times do you hae to be told that the NFL is exempt from traditional labor laws? You just keep spouting of about your own opinion without even responding to others points.

Reflect a bit, do some research, then try to reengage.

I gave Stautner the link where Adam had to teach Fuzzy how this works. Now, lets see if Stautner weasles out of this?!!

 

[Stautner]

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88530

For the lazy wrong guy...from the man with the mind of a child!

Get educated, Stautner...now read the whole thing before you come back with more of your BS excuses...save yourself from ridicule...it's in your best interest.

This all talks about Pacman's conduct and his ongoing problems - and I have sad many times that I agree with the NFL's position on Pacman.

It also talks about a person doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to have the NFL take action, and a I agree with that as well.

It also says that an offense doesn't have to be illegal for the NFL to take action, and I agree with this.


I could read on and on, but the bottom line is that I do not see the Pacman situation as being analogous - I've said that many times on here.


And as I said before - I'm not even saying the NFL cannot take action - I'm just saying they have to make sure they cover their bases bofore they do.


SO TELL ME - WHAT IS YOUR POINT? I'M STILL WAITING.

TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT I HAVE SAID THAT IS WRONG - instead of just saying that somewhere (you can't say where) there is something (you can't say what) in 20 pages of a thread that disputes something (you can't say what that is either) that I said.

 

[Stautner]

I gave Stautner the link where Adam had to teach Fuzzy how this works. Now, lets see if Stautner weasles out of this?!!

It's 20 pages long!

Which part am I supposed to notice?

Tell me what it is you think I said and what it is that this thread is supposed to dispute.

You are just talking vagueries - if you don't even know what it is that you have a problem with or what it is that this thread is supposed to say that disputes it, then you have no point.

If you tell me what exactly you disagree with then I will ba happy to address it.

 

[fortdick]

If I haven't responded to something directly I'm unaware of it ..... show me where I haven't and I will be happy to do so.

Your quote:

WHAT I AM SAYING is that the NFL is bound by the same laws regarding labor pratices that the rest of the United States is .......


.

I have posted three times, at least, that the NFL is exempt from some antitrust laws because of their status as a professional sport.

You keep saying they are bound by federal labor laws, like every other business. THEY AREN'T! Nothing has changed in regards to professional sports since Judge Landis blackballed one third of the Chicago White Sox team in the '20's. After they were acquitted of any crime.

That is about as plain as I can make it.

 

[5Stars]

This all talks about Pacman's conduct and his ongoing problems - and I have sad many times that I agree with the NFL's position on Pacman.

It also talks about a person doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to have the NFL take action, and a I agree with that as well.

It also says that an offense doesn't have to be illegal for the NFL to take action, and I agree with this.


I could read on and on, but the bottom line is that I do not see the Pacman situation as being analogous - I've said that many times on here.


And as I said before - I'm not even saying the NFL cannot take action - I'm just saying they have to make sure they cover their bases bofore they do.


SO TELL ME - WHAT IS YOUR POINT? I'M STILL WAITING.

TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT I HAVE SAID THAT IS WRONG - instead of just saying that somewhere (you can't say where) there is something (you can't say what) in 20 pages of a thread that disputes something (you can't say what that is either) that I said.

Forget it! You did'nt read the whole thing apparently...your just bullheaded...

Again, the NFL does not have to cover anything they do.

I tried....

 

[5Stars]

Your quote:



I have posted three times, at least, that the NFL is exempt from some antitrust laws because of their status as a professional sport.

You keep saying they are bound by federal labor laws, like every other business. THEY AREN'T! Nothing has changed in regards to professional sports since Judge Landis blackballed one third of the Chicago White Sox team in the '20's. After they were acquitted of any crime.

That is about as plain as I can make it.

Give it up, dude! He's just argumentive and bullheaded...

 

[Stautner]

Dude, you don't!

How many times do you hae to be told that the NFL is exempt from traditional labor laws? You just keep spouting of about your own opinion without even responding to others points.

Reflect a bit, do some research, then try to reengage.

How many times? So, I'm supposed to just assume you are right because YOU SAY SO ........no wonder you are upset - you pout like a child when you don't get your way.

Hell, even aside from labor laws, the CBA doesn't even say they can dump someone without cause, and mere accusation in and of itself is not cause - they have to be sure there is more.

And again, I NEVER SAID THEY COULDN'T TAKE ACTION - where the heck do you people keep getting that ....... ?

That's the funny thing - I've just said they will and should take action only once they reach a comfort level that they have all the evidence they need to support taking action.