News: PFT: Marriott: NFL interviewed employee, reviewed video in Michael Irvin case

[MarcusRock]

Alleges he is being "lumped into an against category", then lumps others into the "fanboi", "pro-Irvin", "Irvinite" category.

Criticizes posters for pointing out that others have agreed with the criticisms directed at him then invokes the oh so weak appeal to the flock by saying, "WE know why". Who are you speaking for? You guys having secret meetings? lol

I said it before and I'll say it again. You most definitely don't come across as the objective evidence analyzer you purport yourself to be.

Ah, yes, the shadow fanboi who tried to lump me in with those saying "Irvin is guilty because of his past" by "observing my posts" but somehow missed that I had a go at another poster and actually disagreed with him for saying Irvin's past should be considered in this separate case. Then when I point that out twice, ignores that he was flat out wrong about his assumption due to missed evidence while "observing my posts." Guess you missed an important one that destroys your accusation. Weak is not admitting when you're wrong. So there's that.

You're actually trying to re-join to have a go at me with that history of yours, bro? You're triggered as well. Another pro-Irvin most likely. Logic shows this, not emotion.

 

[IceStar-D7]

My theory??? Video shows nothing. Let's go with plan "B". She said -he said. I just find it nutty that someone can say you said or done something with no proof and your life or dignity is gone. Hope Irvin gets every penny then goes after ESPN and the NFL Network.

 

[conner01]

Maybe and maybe not. They're a private business, not a court. They can make in-house decisions to ban someone like any other business can do when they refuse service to any one for any (non-federally protected) reason. I don't think customers usually get to come back and give their side of the story there either but I don't pretend to know how all businesses operate and in some cases a police report is filed as was not the case here. And here we're talking about sexual harassment so that's an added complexity.

Now, Irvin's team said they did reach out to Marriott with their witnesses, etc. and Marriott didn't respond or consider them which they say is why the suit was filed but that was after Irvin had already been expelled from the hotel and he was taken off the air. Not sure if Irvin's team was seeking an apology, a settlement or what back then but I'm sure Marriott's lawyers would tell their folks not to admit guilt of any kind even if they thought they were wrong. So here we are.

It’s about to be in court soon

 

[Cowfan75]

I just realized this will be the biggest news around Cowboys football until training camp.

 

[Vtwin]

Ah, yes, the shadow fanboi who tried to lump me in with those saying "Irvin is guilty because of his past" by "observing my posts" but somehow missed that I had a go at another poster and actually disagreed with him for saying Irvin's past should be considered in this separate case. Then when I point that out twice, ignores that he was flat out wrong about his assumption due to missed evidence while "observing my posts." Guess you missed an important one that destroys your accusation. Weak is not admitting when you're wrong. So there's that.

You're actually trying to re-join to have a go at me with that history of yours, bro? You're triggered as well. Another pro-Irvin most likely. Logic shows this, not emotion.

I don't generally look at these exchanges as a contest, or as "having a go" at someone, but if you insist..... there is no point in further "having a go" at you since you can't/won't address any of the very clear pieces of evidence available to analyze, which I very clearly presented. In other words, there is nowhere to go because you done gone.

I love how you further prove my point by doubling down and characterize me as "triggered".

I mean anyone who sees you for what you are must be a triggered, pro-Irvin, emotionally driven fanboi, Irvinite, devoid of logic and reason. Must be!!! Right?!

Run that by the boys and girls at your next meeting and let me know what the group has decided.
lol

PS. I haven't met the reasonable, rational, logical adult yet who uses the label of "triggered" against another.

Add that to the list of evidence that supports my position on your attitude in these Irvin threads, and analyze away.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

Not sure if this has been posted, but this link provides the detail of what was allegedly said:

https://insidethestar.com/michael-i...ys-news&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

He supposedly asked her if she “ever had a black man inside of her.”

Lord knows you can't do that!!!!!!!

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't generally look at these exchanges as a contest, or as "having a go" at someone, but if you insist..... there is no point in further "having a go" at you since you can't/won't address any of the very clear pieces of evidence available to analyze, which I very clearly presented. In other words, there is nowhere to go because you done gone.

I love how you further prove my point by doubling down and characterize me as "triggered".

I mean anyone who sees you for what you are must be a triggered, pro-Irvin, emotionally driven fanboi, Irvinite, devoid of logic and reason. Must be!!! Right?!

Run that by the boys and girls at your next meeting and let me know what the group has decided.
lol

PS. I haven't met the reasonable, rational, logical adult yet who uses the label of "triggered" against another.

Add that to the list of evidence that supports my position on your attitude in these Irvin threads, and analyze away.

Still not going to admit you were wrong for lumping me into the group that says Irvin is probably guilty due to his past indiscretions when I spoke to the opposite, eh? I thought so. That's 3 times I've pointed it out now for you to avoid. Do the guilty avoid things? Lol. And you did that as you were accusing me of lumping others into groups just like above. Pride is indeed a powerful thing, ain't it? Is that why you now pull the "I don't have time for folks like you" exit strategy when faced with something you don't want to address? Think I haven't seen that before with other fanbois? That's how they became fanbois, you know. Lol.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Ah, yes, the shadow fanboi who tried to lump me in with those saying "Irvin is guilty because of his past" by "observing my posts" but somehow missed that I had a go at another poster and actually disagreed with him for saying Irvin's past should be considered in this separate case. Then when I point that out twice, ignores that he was flat out wrong about his assumption due to missed evidence while "observing my posts." Guess you missed an important one that destroys your accusation. Weak is not admitting when you're wrong. So there's that.

You're actually trying to re-join to have a go at me with that history of yours, bro? You're triggered as well. Another pro-Irvin most likely. Logic shows this, not emotion.

Marcus, truly this post is beneath you. This entire board will not genuflect when you enter the room. That is the nature of these boards. There will always be someone wanting to call you out into the street for a gun fight. You are not a victim, but there is a nuance which suggests that very thing in your reply. Even if that wasn't intended.

You are swinging at one in the dirt, my friend. There is a reason why they call us The Great Unwashed.

 

[MarcusRock]

Marcus, truly this post is beneath you. This entire board will not genuflect when you enter the room. That is the nature of these boards. There will always be someone wanting to call you out into the street for a gun fight. You are not a victim, but there is a nuance which suggests that very thing in your reply. Even if that wasn't intended.

You are swinging at one in the dirt, my friend. There is a reason why they call us The Great Unwashed.

You can't accuse someone of lumping others into broad categories when you literally did the same thing prior and were factually wrong about it, then avoid addressing that you were wrong about it. I mean, you could, but what kind of an opinionator would that make you? Not a trustworthy one. I'm no victim but I don't start these things either. That too can be factually observed unless one wants to avoid that aspect for convenient reasons.

 

[CouchCoach]

clearly you and CC and a few others have clearly decided Irvin is guilty and nothing else matters

Between the two of them, I believe the woman at this time but that can change with more information than what we have.

After everything we've heard from Irvin and his lawyer, what I have not heard is what did Irvin say, if not what they are alleging? Can he defend himself? Even though he's the plaintiff, he is now the defendant in the court of public opinion and he really cares about that court. So does the NFL.

Since I do not like him and know more about him than I'd really like to know, I am easily bent against him so I have not been completely objective since this started.

And while some do not like it, this is nothing but purely speculation from all of us since it started. Any facts we get are different form the ones we thought we knew so this is a dynamic situation with these lawyers jockeying for position.

The investigator shows up, talks to the woman, watches the video and calls for more NFL personnel to join her to escort Irvin out of the hotel? I want to see what she saw. I would like to know if she believes the woman.

Ya know this isn't a he said/she said situation because he can't or won't say what he did say, if he didn't say that.

And if he did say that, I do not think that warrants the punishment unless he said the "I'll be back when you are working" and he touched her and she pulled back and he made any move toward her.

 

[CouchCoach]

Let me point out that Marcus has not taken sides in this since it started. He has said several times that he does not know and needs more information.

Do not "lump him in" with my kind that does think Irvin is more than capable of this and more.

I freely admit I am biased against him but that does not make my observations wrong based on everything we've been told so far in this.

 

[RoboQB]

Let me point out that Marcus has not taken sides in this since it started. He has said several times that he does not know and needs more information.

Do not "lump him in" with my kind that does think Irvin is more than capable of this and more.

I freely admit I am biased against him but that does not make my observations wrong based on everything we've been told so far in this.

Sure. Defend the antagonist. Surprise, Surprise.

 

[sacase]

Honestly at this point all perspectives are pretty well dug in on their views. I am looking forward to the creative interpretation that the "losing" side is going to use to justify their continued belief once the video drops. I have no idea what its going to show, but both sides stories are far enough apart that it will strengthen one sides claim significantly.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You can't accuse someone of lumping others into broad categories when you literally did the same thing prior and were factually wrong about it, then avoid addressing that you were wrong about it. I mean, you could, but what kind of an opinionator would that make you? Not a trustworthy one. I'm no victim but I don't start these things either. That too can be factually observed unless one wants to avoid that aspect for convenient reasons.

While there is a likes option for this board, no one really keeps score other than Risen.

It's just ether and the people on the other end might pass you on the road and you'll never know.

Do what ever pleases you, Marcus. I just believe you offer much more than getting sucked into the mire.

The Jefferson Airplane - showing my age - had a song called Eskimo Blue Day. It was a protest song about the environment. Which most of the Airplane's songs were during that phase of their careers.

But the most significant aspect was one line they repeated several times in the refrain.

You call it rain
But the human name
Doesn't mean shart to a tree

The bolded may be words to live by.

 

[Diehardblues]

Sure. Defend the antagonist. Surprise, Surprise.

Why would anyone be more apt not to believe the employee instead of Irvin with his history?

 

[Diehardblues]

Between the two of them, I believe the woman at this time but that can change with more information than what we have.

After everything we've heard from Irvin and his lawyer, what I have not heard is what did Irvin say, if not what they are alleging? Can he defend himself? Even though he's the plaintiff, he is now the defendant in the court of public opinion and he really cares about that court. So does the NFL.

Since I do not like him and know more about him than I'd really like to know, I am easily bent against him so I have not been completely objective since this started.

And while some do not like it, this is nothing but purely speculation from all of us since it started. Any facts we get are different form the ones we thought we knew so this is a dynamic situation with these lawyers jockeying for position.

The investigator shows up, talks to the woman, watches the video and calls for more NFL personnel to join her to escort Irvin out of the hotel? I want to see what she saw. I would like to know if she believes the woman.

Ya know this isn't a he said/she said situation because he can't or won't say what he did say, if he didn't say that.

And if he did say that, I do not think that warrants the punishment unless he said the "I'll be back when you are working" and he touched her and she pulled back and he made any move toward her.

Public opinion is paramount. Especially with a personality of Irvin’s sexual misconduct history already fired by one sports network for another inappropriate behavior.

 

[Ekspozed]

Why would anyone be more apt not to believe the employee instead of Irvin with his history?

Which makes him an easy target and you should wait for all the evidence/facts to come put before making any kind or judgement on it.

The ones who picked a side from the start should just keep quiet. Why listen to opinion from someone who already has it formed without any information.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Y’all are weird. Quick to rush to judgement to confirm your own bias’s you have. Wait until the facts come out because im sure they eventually will.

 

[MarcusRock]

While there is a likes option for this board, no one really keeps score other than Risen.

It's just ether and the people on the other end might pass you on the road and you'll never know.

Do what ever pleases you, Marcus. I just believe you offer much more than getting sucked into the mire.

The Jefferson Airplane - showing my age - had a song called Eskimo Blue Day. It was a protest song about the environment. Which most of the Airplane's songs were during that phase of their careers.

But the most significant aspect was one line they repeated several times in the refrain.

You call it rain
But the human name
Doesn't mean shart to a tree

The bolded may be words to live by.

Appreciate the sentiment but if the mire don't start none, there won't be none. Start none on the topic at hand, why dontcha? Not you specifically but the "why dontcha" fit better there. Lol.

 

[Diehardblues]

Which makes him an easy target and you should wait for all the evidence/facts to come put before making any kind or judgement on it.

The ones who picked a side from the start should just keep quiet. Why listen to opinion from someone who already has it formed without any information.

This is what we do on social media making speculations before all of the facts come out.

My only opinion is based on the action the Marriott and NFL have taken. And Irvin’s comments.

If he wasn’t a HOF Cowboys QB he wouldn’t have anyone taking his side in this forum with his history.