DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Watson trade off the field III

j/c:

There are several posters on this board who have already convicted Watson of the allegations. They have played judge and jury w/out all the facts. I said it somewhere else, but it reminds me of Salem and the surrounding areas back in the day when women were declared to be witches and were unfairly tried in the court of public opinion. One would think that our society has evolved beyond such crude ideals.

I am here to tell you that being unjustly accused of a crime is earth shattering. Your entire family will be devastated and subjected to cruel treatment. Your life will be upended and depression is almost certain. I know of a person who was unjustly accused of a crime. The accuser later admitted to police that it was all a lie. But, the stink of the accusation never went away for the accused.

Furthermore, I don't know if any of you remember being a child and being accused of something you did not do whether it be from a parent, teacher, neighbor, administrator, etc......but did you not almost feel guilty under the duress of their questioning? Were you not so uncomfortable that you tended to fidget and feel trapped? Can any of you superior human beings even begin to fathom the pain that is caused by being unjustly accused? Why is it so important to you to deem a man guilty when you have absolutely no idea if he is or isn't?

Watson may be guilty? The women may be victims? Watson may be innocent? The truth might be somewhere in between when certain things that were assumed were not the reality w/some of the women who have made the allegations? I don't know. Neither do you.

You may feel the need to be omnipotent and could care less about the truth, but I think the humane thing to do is for allow the process to play out before assigning guilt to either the accusers or the accused.

One last thing...........I am not a religious man, but I always loved the saying [and I am probably paraphrasing] "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

j/c,

Mankind can never be the arbiter of our own morality, for whenever we think to, then we fall into the ditch of self-righteousness. Consider first "the man in the mirror"....

It is like Salem. In Salem they burned the witches. Now they're burning massage therapists. And you seem to want to help them do that. Omnipotent? Yeah, that's what you call someone who knows it's ridiculous to think all 22 women are lying and only one person is telling the truth? Keep twisting in the wind.

I mean it's just like a neighbor who accused you of something when you were a kid, right? Get that crap out of here.

You mean complex ideas like synonyms? In all of your espousing of hyperbole if anyone is skirting anything it's you. In all likelihood is a pretty strong accusation.

Speaking of ignoring everything else, much has been provided as to why these women would be telling the truth. People ignore what they choose to ignore. All of your persistent rambling trying to equivocate the situation won't change anything.

People are rarely aware of their own ignorance. It certainly doesn't seem like I will be able to dispel yours. Some people are simply incapable of understanding some things.

The problem with synonyms is that not all of them are applicable in every context. I didn't think context was a complicated idea, but perhaps it is for some. I suppose context is just one of those things that you choose to ignore.

I didn't think the idea that reducing unique unknown people to 22:1 odds being a gross oversimplification was that complex, either. It seems that perceived complexity is related to one's ignorance, or maybe only his willingness to ignore anything that conflicts with his paradigm.

Do your word salad posts even make sense to you when you go back and read them? I feel like half of your sentences could be the result of a random number generator and an online dictionary.

I think I'll let this topic lie until there is actually new information to respond to. My persistence in all likelihood is wasted in trying to elucidate things to you. Closed minds that choose to ignore things are practically impossible to change.

Moving this thread here did nothing but cause it to devolve into a Pit and Bull pissing match. If it were still being discussed in the main forum (it is against others wishes), then we could just ignore the ___ measuring contest in here.

Why are you being so hard on yourself? I won't say I disagree with your self assessment but that's probably an issue you should be addressing in private.


And you are the authority on which ones apply and where? You like to tailor make synonyms to suit your debate. And then you act like you are the only one who knows which ones apply and which ones don't.


You mean your claims of being an expert about context is something I choose to ignore. But then that would require you to put things in context.


If that were the only thing that had been shown you might have a point. But not much of one. But you know that's not true. And for someone that has been painting their own paradigm your comments ring hollow. At this point all you have left are personal attacks which make you look weak at best.


Once again, you are the one here posting useless word salad. You just can't see it. It's the same thing you do to these victims lawyer. Paint your own personal picture using descriptions of your own choosing to paint the picture you wish to portray. It appears shallow, personal and void of anything factual. It appears that's the picture of yourself you wish to portray.


First you would have to be qualified to elucidate anyone. You lack the qualifications to do so. If anything illustrates that, it's this last post of yours. Since you have lost any ability to control your emotions at this juncture, it probably is best you refrain from posting about it. Your lack of restraint and incessant need to trash the character of anyone who puts up a strong argument against you is rearing its ugly head.

All you did above is claim "Yeah but you're ignorant." Your superiority complex is showing. And when all you can do is attack the person you were addressing in such a manner it shows that you were never superior to begin with.

Don't blame us. You're the one who brought the tape measure.

I don't own a tape measure that short.

We moved it here because we wanted to keep the non football out of pure football. That's all we wanted.

As for the rest, you can still ignore it.

Sadly, I can't stare someone down through a message board. That pretty much leaves trying to use words with Pit. I'll leave any comparative pictures out of it.

Then I have no idea what you're using at home. A micrometer possibly?

Yeah, the differences in opinion are large and throughout the fan base. That is exactly why it belongs in pure football. It's probably the most important football decision/move ever made by the Browns, and a ton of people have things to say about it. But then a certain poster shows up, and this huge topic gets relegated to tailgate. I don't care who likes or hates DW, I care about the truth and knowing as much as I can for my own peace of mind. But yeah, that's not pure football.

None of the powers that be on this board moved anything. It's still being discussed in Pure Football despite what a few certain posters think about it. And yes, it was never mentioned until someone who thought they knew better than the people who actually run the board did.

swing and a miss. pwned.

it'll get blamed on me of course.

LOL

1. I know you are, but what am I is a great comeback for an 8 year old.

2. If anyone would be an expert on the context of words I used, it would be me. You know, since I was the one that used them.

3. I never claimed to be an expert. Nice of you to attempt to attribute them to me. I used the words in the context that I used them in. You then took them out of that context, and changed "possible" to "possibly."

4. You responded to posts repeatedly with 22:1 as your sole reason for your position. I haven't attacked you personally. Your arguments, yes. Have I presented things that may resemble you, yes.

5. Words can be used to paint pictures, yes. Shallow and lacking facts are more your domain. I've been the one pointing out the lack of facts and the shallowness of your 22:1 argument.

6. This is me controlling my emotions. I actually didn't claim that you were ignorant. I was very careful about that. I left a shoe for you to try on. It seems like there was just enough room for you to wiggle your toes. Maybe you should check your emotions before walking into any more traps.

What qualifications would I need? How do you know what qualifications I have? There you go with your assumptions again. To trash anyone with a strong argument, I'd have to be presented with a strong argument. Get that weak stuff out of here.

Still swinging at the wind I see after your rant. Your demeaning post speaks for itself. I gave you a dose of what you were dishing out. It seems the taste of it wasn't so pleasant when it hit your pallet. You still haven't stopped to some extent but at this point that's all you have. Undermining the word of 22 women and making that sound like a practical take on things certainly doesn't leave you in an enviable postion and your responses show it. And this was hilarious!

The fact that you personally find a post that never explicitly refers to you demeaning speaks for itself. I can separate you from your arguments and actions. Now you are starting to make it personal. I'd get angry, but it's not worth the effort.

It's about time you got my sense of humour, even if by accident.

One could also make the Salem comparison by saying 22 townspeople want to burn the rich witch that lives on the edge of town.

You get it.

What you seem not to get is how easily your description fits how some of you seem to characterize message therapists like they're modern day witches.

I wonder how many accusers it would take for some of you to get it? 30, 40, 50? Oh that's right, overwhelming odds mean nothing to some of you. I suggest you stay away from casinos and sports gambling.

When the overwhelming odds are 9 massage therapists and 13 others who had no intention of making public accusations until they were approached by a proven power hungry, attention seeking lawyer, I might throw a few nickels on red.

Like I said, I want to see what happens in the trial and all of the evidence from BOTH sides before I pass judgment. I'm certainly not ready to hang him like you are.

j/c:

Does anyone know what "message therapists" do? Do they assist folks in composing text messages? Are they there to provide comfort to people who are offended on social media outlets? Just curious...

It probably won't go to a trial. Even there, you have two very different accounts of what took place. Watson doesn't have to prove anything, the plaintiff's do, so it will come down to she said, he said.

No matter how many times it gets explained to you, you just can't seem to grasp just how hard it is, and how often victims refuse to come out in situations of sexual abuse. Especially against the rich and powerful.

Why? Just read your response. It's bad enough they have to endure the sexual abuse to begin with. After that they have people like you to deal with. Finding safety in numbers and someone who is an expert in such matters to represent you isn't the nefarious plot you make it out to be. There seems to be a common theme. "Well he's rich so them and their lawyer are gold diggers."

Yes, according to that any man accused who is wealthy must be innocent. I mean unless their is an eye witness or video of it, right?

Are you sure there are victims? They should probably be called claimants at this point. Many judges won't even allow the defense attorney to call them victims in court because the word is prejudicial against the defendant, and rightfully so.

I am not saying that to be argumentative, more just a point to think about.

There are other points to think about. Look at the character assassinations these women are enduring. It's been made public that one of them at least is and has been receiving death threats. Anyone that has looked into how sexual allegations work, especially against rich and powerful men knows that victims are slow to come forward in many cases. They know they will be treated much the same way these women are bring treated. They know they will be labeled as gold diggers and pariahs. That's certainly not something anyone would take lightly. As for the judges. I certainly agree "most judges" wouldn't allow that in criminal court. But some would. As for a civil trial I think more judges would consider it admissible. As much as some would like to dismiss it, the sheer volume of his accusers would be quite pertinent in a civil trial.

I know in the Cosby criminal trial they did allow one other victim to testify. I have no idea how it works in a civil trial as a general rule.

So, because of this, we must assume they are telling the truth?


When you have an attorney with the history of this guy rounding up women who had no intention of coming forward, and who stand to gain financially...... we shouldn't want all of the facts before passing judgment?


Well, you're saying that he must be guilty, despite there being no solid evidence, because there are 22 accusers who were rounded up and prepped before coming forward.

Like I said, I'm not ready to pass judgment until all of the available details and evidence has been presented. I'm not declaring his innocence, but we don't have enough information.

Hell, some people can't seem to fathom that it's not about all of them telling the truth. Their assertion is that none of them are telling the truth. There's a lot of territory between the two.

Your use of the term "rounded up" is a convenient description of the portrait you're trying to paint. Which like many is an attack on the victims by attempting to undermine their attorney. Reality dictates you are creating a picture that doesn't fit......

Tony Buzbee Wins Texas Lawyer's 2015 Attorney of the Year Award

In the past 12 months, Buzbee served as lead for three trials that each led to more than $25 million verdicts for his clients, including a $159 million award that a Houston jury issued in negligence case.

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/almID/1202741511436/?slreturn=20220302132719

Tony Buzbee, ’97, named Texas Lawyer’s ‘2015 Attorney of the Year’

Nov. 5, 2015-- UH Law Center alumnus Tony Buzbee ’97, one of the most successful trial lawyers in the nation, has received top honors from one of the state’s leading legal publications. Texas Lawyer magazine has selected Buzbee as its “2015 Attorney of the Year.”

https://www.law.uh.edu/news/fall2015/1105Buzbee.asp

You see, often times what gets posted is nothing more than reading and repeating what one wants to hear, not reality. There's a lot of misinformation out there and people should be careful about repeating it. I don't expect reality to convince anyone otherwise because as we can see, it hasn't so far.

Buzbee also supported Donald Trump and held a fundraiser for him at his mansion. He later said he didn't support him, but then donated 500k to his campaign. So this champion of womens rights is a Trump supporter? I think he follows fame and money.

I didn't have to "think" he was the lawyer of the year in 2015. If I based all of my judgements about people on who voted or donated to the Trump campaign I wouldn't talk to half or more of the people I know. And I'm quite sure there are some people I know that voted for him and support him that are lying that they didn't too.

But you see, just like when you spout that, it has nothing to do with what an effective and successful lawyer he is. It doesn't change the actual fact he was lawyer of the year in 2015.

So now the fact that it's been shown to you that he's a highly regarded and respected attorney you come back with, "Yeah but trump"?

As I said above....

I won't keep going round and round, but you didn't answer my question, or didn't understand the point.

Are you sure there are victims?

You might think there are victims. You might even want them to be victims, but you don't know there are victims. There are alleged victims. I can agree with that.

The odds of 24 alleged victims and 22 civil suits combined with an attorney who has been very successful and won attorney of the year in 2015 has me convinced that at least some of these women are victims.

There will only be a he said age said account with which to draw a conclusion. I don't believe coincidences are impossible. But the numbers dictate to me that there simply aren't 24 coincidences.

We have seen the victims character attacked and they're attorney attacked. These women knew this would happen going into this. At least one of them so far have received death threats. No, it isn't just "all made up".

j/c

Yeah, this is really quieting down......

In 22nd minute, Columbus Crew fans hold up 22 signs to protest Cleveland Browns' signing of Deshaun Watson

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...zj74D21XcojO8_CmColT4AN8mhdTXyShG4yaIrCg

If they paid for their tickets, that seems a somewhat counterproductive form of protest. We don't like what you did, take our money. Just saying.

That's the price you pay to make a public statement. To make a public statement first you must do it in a public setting. They did. It's going to get very messy this fall.

Too many folks on here seem to wanna make excuses for Watsons behavior. He did go to the ladies. They didn't come to him from what we can tell.

He could have gone to the team and asked for a massage therapist to be assigned to him but if he did that, it apparently wasn't enough.

My guess is there is some truth to what the ladies are saying.

I don't think the 22 are completely fabricating their allegations either. So where is 'the line'? In the absence of facts, I've been looking ahead to what I think it's going to look like when all this is concluded. What are we comfortable with (keeping in mind the inevitable slippery slope argument we'll have to go through as it relates to NFL athlete's personal conduct)? What if nothing else gets leaked out, and they all settle out of court?