Could be is honest.

It's not always portraying them in a negative light. If you admitted the possibility of being wrong, I wouldn't feel obligated to point out that you could be.

Every time you write "22 women can't be lying" or some variation, which denies the possibility of anything else, I disagree.

If people were claiming "DeShaun can't have done this," I'd disagree with them, too. No one has had the audacity to take this position. You, on the other hand, are not lacking in audacity.

Haha, great minds think alike.

Portland kinda communicated a point I was trying to make in an earlier post insinuating prostitution in that he asked if background was done and put out there on the accusers. It stinks of victim-blaming, but I wouldn't mind more context behind everything... especially since articles repeatedly mentioned Watson's seeming preference for non-certified therapists and going through social media.

Possibilities do not equal likelihood. Almost anything is possible. Few things are likely. As I said, if all you have to stand on is degrading and questioning the victims it speaks volumes.

The problem with your logic is that I'm not making a stand.

You're the one making a stand based on minimally supported probabilities.

I can't speak to the veracity of these alleged exchanges. If they are legitimate, I would have a hard time believing that the masseuse was expecting to give a "professional massage" after an exchange proposing a scanty outfit and including heart and rose emojis.
link

This is one of the problems with coming to any conclusion on these cases. We don't have ready access to the evidence.

It's hard to know what is legit and what is fabricated.

I don't believe that's true at all. The probability that I'm correct is much higher than all those "possibilities" you've managed to create.

Based on what?

Based on the fact you would have to find just cause to dismiss the allegations of 22 people and believe 1. Those odds are undeniable even though you seem to try and attempt they hold no credence on the daily.

What exactly are those odds? How did you come up with a number?

Those numbers are 22 to 1. Being obtuse at this juncture isn't helping you.

Those are numbers but they aren't really odds. What are they the odds of?

If those are the odds you are basing your entire position on, they are (extremely) simplistic and don't account for anything but the numbers themselves. This takes me back to my point of your "probability" being minimally supported. If the only thing you have supporting the probability is the numbers themselves, it really doesn't get any more minimal.

There's a difference between actual and minimal. No matter how much spin you put on it. Numbers are exactly what odds are determined by.

He just doesn't understand that buying 22 lotto tickets doesn't increase your odds of winning over buying 1 lotto ticket. The odds of winning remain the same.

Thank you for clarifying... Minimal and actual are different? You don't say.

When I say minimal, I mean minimal.

The Brown's have 40:1 odds to win the Super Bowl. Where did those numbers come from? What do they mean?

Odds generally aren't just based on a single pair of numbers. The numbers take into account a multitude of factors.

You act like the odds god whispered in your ear that it's 22 times more likely that Watson is lying, and that's that. That's ridiculous. Things aren't that straightforward in the real world.

Yeah, the odds of hitting the lottery is 22-1. I'm thinking you lack any understanding of what is being discussed. Buying 22 tickets to something that has maybe 1,000,000 to one odds isn't the same. But thanks for playing.

It actually does increase your odds of winning. They're still terrible, but they do go up.

His "odds" however aren't comparing identical objects, so they most likely shouldn't be weighted the same. Each individual is unique. There is evidence that supports or refutes each one's claims.

And things aren't as skewed as you're trying to make them out to be either. It's not my fault that trying to make the claim 22 people are lying and only 1 person is telling the truth is 22-1 odds. If you actually wish to consider other factors the odds would be much higher than that. Thinking that 22 people are lying and only 1 is telling the truth is claiming the almost impossible.

I haven't laid odds. I've just pointed out that your odds are bogus and/or overly simplistic.

You have no idea what the odds are. I have no idea what a good approximation of the odds are. However, I do know that your 22:1 odds are facile, and they do not adequately reflect the complexities of the situation.

22 people lying and only 1 telling the truth is quite possible. With your "logic," all the "witches" in Salem were lying.

Can anyone hear the question he answered? What previous case was he referring to?

Once again you are using a term very loosely and deceptively. "Quite possible" is a big stretch. Highly unlikely would be much more accurate.

I used the terms to their dictionary definitions. It is not impossible. Thus, it is quite (completely) possible (able to be done). 22 people are completely able to lie. My straightforward statement made no claims to probability.

Highly unlikely would be a complete guess as to the probability with no specificity (and thus little accuracy.) I'd consider that much more deceptive than my statement which is literally true.

More people saying something is the weakest reason to believe something in human history. "Hey, Galileo! Everybody says that the sun revolves around the earth, you bloody liar." Maybe you should try considering the actual evidence, or maybe something as simple as considering that you don't actually know what evidence might exist.

j/c:

One off the field thing I found fascinating was how ESPN and other media outlets were highlighting the pursuit of Watson by various NFL teams. Apparently, there were 8 teams who were after him. Four agreed to the extreme demands of the trade. Three first round choices plus more. Think about that. Four teams were able and willing to trade that much for Watson. Another four were not in position to offer that much, but still wanted to acquire him.

The commentary was all about who were the favorites. It wasn't about the compensation package because all those teams agreed to give up that much. Houston did rule out Indy because they were in the same conference. The narrative was all about which team Watson preferred to go to. New Orleans was the favorite and then some said Atlanta because Watson was from there and the town would accept him. There wasn't hardly any talk about morals in the short time that transpired once the GJ decided to not pursue criminal charges.

Then, the Browns held an introductory press conference and the local media killed the Browns and Watson. A lot of the long-time Baker apologists attacked the Browns and Watson w/questions that could not possibly be answered. They tried to get Watson to admit guilt. The remorse question was especially repulsive because why would one be remorse if one was innocent. To admit remorse would be akin to be admitting guilt.

Of course, the national media--including ESPN--recognized the bad optics of the press conference and have since changed their position on Watson and the team obtaining him. I do not believe this outrage would have occurred had Watson signed w/the Saints or Falcons. Sometimes, I think Cleveland is Cleveland's own worst enemy.

Could be the delayed ESPN reaction was due to the Cleveland media coverage having a negative tone or maybe ESPN got swift "how can you support this" type of feedback. NO way to know for sure but you are right, either this is a major moral issue or it isn't . Nothing regarding the cases changes in between that time span.

So, I've been reading up on Texas law. It has some different quirks than other states. I'm wondering if seeking barratry charges on Buzbee could be part of a valid defense strategy for Watson. link

What does quite possibly mean?
' quite/very possibly: He is quite possibly the most experienced climber in the world. Synonyms and related words. Certain or likely to happen.

When you attach the word quite with possibly your explanation doesn't stack up.

In your whacked out version of reality maybe so. Not in reality.

Inquire isn't the same as acquire.

Possible and possibly are different words with different meanings. If you change my words, you change the meaning.

You're quite possibly aware of this.

Care to explain the difference?

Texans star Deshaun Watson accuser getting death threats after going public

https://clutchpoints.com/texans-new...etting-death-threats-after-going-public/

In all of your excuse laced posts you seem to ignore that when women go public this is the treatment they receive. They risk their own personal safety to bring such allegations forward. But in your world it's "Quite possible" they're willing to risk their own life for a little cash. Highly unlikely.

Good point about "how can you support this" feedback. I didn't consider that.

Quite possibly implies a high likelihood. Quite possible implies that the likelihood is certainly not zero.

You assume that they considered the consequences. I make no such assumptions. It sucks that they get death threats, but that's the world we live in. It's often what happens when a society likes to jump to conclusions.

I also have to shake my head at your completely arbitrary highly unlikely. How did you come up with that? People risk their lives for money all the time. Further, we're not talking about a little cash. They're potentially looking at millions.

It is highly unlikely that 22 women are all willing to risk their lives just to lie about someone's sexual advances. It's not a logical conclusion. But that is the excuse all rich and famous people use to try and present their innocence. By that very standard it would mean that no rich or powerful person ever committed any criminal sexual acts. So what you are doing is repeating a tired old line every rich person uses to deny accountability. I mean only a rich person is telling the truth and all those women are pond scum, right?

Quite possible.... to the greatest extent; completely or absolutely

synonyms;

absolutely possible
certainly possible
definitely possible
distinct possibility
entirely possible
may well
perfectly possible
quite feasible
quite possibly
strong possibility
very possible
well be
all likelihood
ample room
as possible

It appears you're making things up as you go along.

Your attention to detail is lousy. "To the greatest extent; completely or absolutely" is only the definition of "quite."

I'm guessing you pulled that from here: link

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that searching for "it is quite possible that" was reduced to only quite.

I suppose your glossing over details shouldn't surprise me.

You keep trying to turn this into a case of absolutes. It's not. Any of them could be telling the truth or lying. Neither of us knows which ones are or are not. Neither of us knows the likelihood. Those are logical conclusions.

You wouldn't recognize a logical conclusion if it showed up on a stone tablet right before your eyes if it wasn't something that you already believed.

It's not I that's glossing over details. You are the one who attached the word quite to the word possible. That's exactly what qualified your position. You didn't say it could be possible, or slightly possible or that it was a possibility. Your claim was that it was "quite possible". The rest of your post has no meaning to the topic. It's just now that it has been shown you were indicating it was more likely than not possible you have nothing left to do but attack. That seems to be a common denominator these days when all else fails.

Whoever said this doesn't belong in pure football was wrong. If our QB is a predator, we should talk about it, right along with everything else we scrutinize about players. Tucking an uncomfortable problem/concern into tailgate, doesn't make it less newsworthy, it just means most on the board won't see it. Shameful.

Okay, you're right. You're not glossing over details. You're completely changing them and/or making them up and/or ignoring them. Perhaps, you're just incapable of comprehending complex ideas. You don't understand it, so "the rest of [the] post has no meaning" to you. I suppose that's not necessarily your fault.

If I ever doubted that the Dunning-Kruger effect was a real phenomenon, trying to hold a rational discussion with you has thoroughly convinced me of its existence.

I suppose the proliferation of self-proclaimed experts on the internet should have been more than enough of an indication that people think they know more than they actually know. Honestly there's evidence of people having an overinflated sense of self importance/abilities all over the country/world. Most everyone seems to see themselves as the protagonist of all the "stories" they come into contact with. They seem to think their opinion is right because they're the main character. Sadly, most people need to realize that, rather than main characters, they are really limited narrators and should just let other people's stories come to them instead of trying to fit them to how they would like them.

Everyone in this sexual assault case mess has probably twisted the story to put themselves in the best light in some way. It's not necessarily a question of who's telling the truth and who is lying. They might all believe they are telling the truth, but their perception of what the truth is may not be entirely accurate.

It's not a clear cut situation that can be easily distilled down to 2 simple numbers and ignore everything else.

"Daayumm. Somebody buy that man a cold one, he just spit fire!"

I thought I kept things pretty controlled. I don't think a drink would help.

Apparently, I should try to calm myself down. I'll try amusing myself by listening to this song I stumbled across and maybe some people will find it relevant to the topic.

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?

Going to put this here as a continuation of the closed Depo turned to Watson thread.


There's a difference between defending someone when there is scant evidence against them and accusing someone when there is scant evidence against them.

Lawyers like to win. It's easier to defend because the burden of proof lies on the accuser. It's hard to win as an accuser when you don't have proof.

However, this might be a case where Buzbee can still win by losing. If he's intending to move to politics from the law (and he ran for mayor in the last cycle), he won't have to worry about clients looking at his recent W-L record. He might not be looking for clients at all. Voters will likely be swayed by the fact that he was willing to try the case at all. Buzbee's rich already and has more money than he can likely ever spend. It looks like he's pursuing a different kind of power now to me.

I would hate that. I want to know if any crimes were committed.

Like the Arthur Anderson case? Or the Adrian Peterson case? So your theory is that one lawyer wants to win and the other one doesn't care if he wins?

I think the tip of your shovel might be dull at this point. It's been doing a lot of digging.

I can see the campaign poster now. "I sucked at being a lawyer so let me be your mayor".

If my shovel is dull, it likely got that way from being aimed metaphorically at your hard head. Your shovel would be brown and slimy from the nonsensical drivel you've been scooping. (I write this with annoying brother-like love)

Unfortunately, we live in a world where it's a lot easier to sling garbage than it is to scrape it off. I wouldn't elect Buzbee to lead Houston's sanitation department, but Houston voters aren't me.

You're hilarious. So you think claiming an attorney wants to lose cases on purpose makes sense? Probably so. You're also in favor of believing a very successful attorney just rounds up a group of liars and that seems logical to you because you would like to paint him as some ambulance chaser which is entire career does not support at all. You tried to do the mental gymnastics to make that all a logical conclusion. You seem to have a problem with attorney's who represent victims and court. And usually wins. That must be your definition of garbage.

I could care less about the past. I'm looking at events and information surrounding this particular situation.

I never claimed he wanted to lose. He might see it as a win either way, so he was willing to roll the dice. He also could have been cocky enough to think he could win with evidence against his clients by using the media.

Your twisting my words into him wanting to lose is straight $#17 poster garbage.

So not caring if he wins means he doesn't care if he loses? You do realize that not caring if you win means if you lose it doesn't matter, right? How far is that from losing on purpose? Refusing to take someone's career as a whole and claim you're actually trying to evaluate a current situation holds no merit. And to try and act like losing cases has no impact on entering politics is in the first place conjecture that he's even going to retire from law and switch over to politics and secondly ignoring that taking on losing cases wouldn't be used as a political weapon against him. Maybe you should switch back to your all 22 women are liars and only watson is telling the truth shtick.

I realize and fully admit that "losing a case on purpose" is different than "not caring if you win or not". But it's not a big reach from one to the other. And it's certainly not a better argument.

There's a difference between not caring if something happens and wanting something to happen.

There you go trying to twist things into the worst possible light, just like you do with Watson.

Buzbee switching to politics isn't conjecture. He literally ran for mayor. He lost.

More evidence that Buzbee just likes being on TV: link

No wonder you feel so close to this guy. He has a thing for manure, too: link

He's "plotting" a food show? You're getting even more desperate. He currently isn't running for any office. To claim he will at some point in the future will run for political office is the very definition of conjecture.

You either missed this part of my post or decided to ignore it.


I doubt that watson's attorney at 80 years old, Rusty Hardin has any other aspirations in terms of expanding into a different career.

But to claim one is an attention seeking attorney and one is not defies logic. All one needs to do is compare their client list to know they've made their name based on famous clients.

It is a cop-out, but it's also reality. Being very very good at something done at the highest levels has gotten countless people out of consequences. I didn't say they SHOULDN'T be held to the same standards, I said that they're not (I made an observation, not a judgement).

Allegedly. There's a ton we don't know. The 'creepy' argument is simply, based on what little we know, Watson is (at best) a total creep. IMO, we "know" that.


.... and yes, I did quote your post from the other thread and put my response here.

I'm failing to understand the logic here. Watson has denied the allegations of all these women. So if you believe Watson then how can he be considered "creepy"? To claim you base him being creepy on "what you know" that would have to mean you believe some of the allegations wouldn't it?

I also brought up people like Michael Vick and Kareem Hunt. They may not have paid the price you would have felt was appropriate, but in both these cases along with many others they were punished, did seek help and apologized for their actions. In almost every such case I think the claim could be made that they got preferential treatment, but their were consequences for their actions. Thus far all watson has been is rewarded.

The 2019 Mayoral run wasn't his first foray into politics.

Here's a longer read that gives a more thorough, almost biographical look at Buzbee:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-p...um=referral&utm_campaign=sharebutton


For some reason, I'm not surprised by his affinity for sharks.

Whoa...........that article makes him look like, well, bad.

" spanning the past year or so that link Buzbee to: (a) a drunken blonde with the central-casting name of Lindy Lou Layman who had to be ejected from a party at his $14 million River Oaks mansion by the Houston Police Department after destroying an estimated $300,000 worth of art, including two Warhols; (b) the purchase of a $600,000 World War II–era tank that either did or did not storm the beach at Normandy but was certainly squatting in front of said mansion, to the delight of gawkers and the consternation of his more reserved neighbors; and (c) a burglary at the same mansion, during which an estimated $21 million worth of art, technology, guns, and jewelry was stolen. “But for the fact that my weapon misfired, I would have shot one of them,” Buzbee posted on Facebook later that same day."

That's 36 million right there.

And this gem: " That would include 30 to 40 percent of the billions of dollars he’s won against companies like BP and Ford;"







Yeah, I can see where he saw opportunity to make bank with these 22 ladies. If he gets 30-40% of any settlements........do the math. I mean, IF the cases get settled out of court at say, even $100,000.00 per claim, that's $2.2 million. At 30% of that, it's a nice $660,000 pay day. If he loses every single case, what has he lost? Not much. Go after a high profile person/athlete on the chance you may bet paid, and if you lose, you basically lose not much at all.

Watson's main defense is that everything was consensual. People bring up the points that he had WAY too many massage therapists, preferred under or un-qualified individuals, and didn't run any of that through the Texans, and instead found them via social media. One of his "handlers" mentioned something to the effect of "these guys don't get told 'no' very often". To me, that points to him being (at best) a sex addict who likes to use unqualified massage therapists as sort of prostitutes.

Your points could be valid- lots of massage therapists- doing math over time isn't that many. Depends on what your definition of a sex addict is.....talk about a broad topic- is a married man who has sex twice in one day a sex addict- some would say yes. JMHO, he said, she said....with a "slick" lawyer involved for the ladies. I don't see how he's guilty of anything in civil court even. There is NO evidence yet.
Innocent until proved guilty. Public opinion, Christ was crucified for nothing but good- anything can happen in the world.

If he looks bad when committing no criminal offenses against women you must think watson looks terrible. So I guess having a someone who acts like an azz at a party is an indictment of someone? You guys are really reaching now.

And you might have a point about some made up money grab if you refuse to look at his former clients and career. He's a very successful attorney at what he does. His reputation on the practice of law gives zero indication he's some scam artist. This isn't a Better Call Saul situation no matter how you try to portray it. If that were the case you must think every lawyer that brings civil suits to court are scum bags.

Actually watson used more than 50 massage therapists in that time frame.

New Lawsuit Alleges Deshaun Watson Used 'More Than Fifty Different Women for Massages'

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/04/05/deshaun-watson-lawsuits-latest-massage-sexual-assault

There were warnings about his behavior and even the Texan's own attorney tried to settle with these women quite some time ago................

5 New Women Claim Deshaun Watson Had a Reputation in the Massage Therapy Community of Masturbating During Sessions; Texans Owner’s Lawyer Tried to Help Watson Settle Cases

Others wonder why if Watson was just going in for massages how that ended up with him having oral sex with the women. SI did an extensive feature on Watson and his behavior. While none of it is a smoking gun of his guilt, it does paint a clear picture of how things look from the outside looking in.

SI also interviewed five women—not among either the 22 plaintiffs or the list of 18 therapists who supported Watson in testimonials provided to his defense attorney’s firm—who worked with or were contacted by Watson, including one who both worked on Watson and referred him to other licensed massage therapists, or LMTs.

One thing is clear: Warnings about Watson had been percolating in the Houston massage therapy community for some time. Some were mundane—he was a last-minute booker, do not expect a tip. Others were far more troubling. Two LMTs told SI they were warned last year by others in their profession about Watson’s inappropriate conduct, including his making sexually explicit motions on the table or insisting on using a small towel that would inadequately cover his genital area, rather than the standard massage draping. And that same industry veteran Solis’s colleague contacted says she talked to Watson about his conduct after an appointment she set up in 2019—the one detailed to SI in March by a woman we called Mary, who has not filed a lawsuit.

Twenty-one of the 22 lawsuits present a civil assault claim, pointing to three violations of the Texas penal code: indecent assault (which includes touching another person with your genitals or causing them to come into contact with your seminal fluids without consent), assault and harassment...................

A couple of anonymous NFL players gave their opinion on what was going on with Watson.

It is what most normal people were thinking as well.

Adds the NFC defensive back: “I don’t know guys who use 22 different masseuses,” referring to the number of plaintiffs during an interview in March. He was expressing skepticism about the plaintiffs—the number itself, that one player would have worked with that many therapists, seems so unrealistic. But the number is likely far higher. If you count all 22 plaintiffs as having worked with Watson as well as a former plaintiff who dropped her suit “for now”, the 18 therapists who issued statements in support of Watson through Hardin’s firm and other therapists who spoke to SI (and whose accounts were verified), Watson has worked with at least 44 therapists over the past few years. He has reached out to more than that.

https://blacksportsonline.com/2021/...awyer-tried-to-help-watson-settle-cases/

There's a lot more information at the link provided.

Attacking their attorney by some on this board like he's a scum bag goes against everything he has accomplished in his career and is just a tool to undermine watson's victims. Don't let them fool you with some bait and switch con game.

I won't try to claim that watson may not have some sort of sexual addiction problem. But assuming all of these massage therapists were prostitutes seems to be his undoing. If sex was the objective it would seem a lot more logical he would be calling escort services.

I take it you didn't read the entire Texas weekly article? I could care less about the party stuff. I'm more looking at his relationship with a former judge and their shady backroom dealings. His admission that he filed some lawsuits for the publicity. He's stated that he likes to go to smearing the opponent early and often as a tactic. He's proud to consider himself a shark. He's got one tattooed on his forearm, has door handles shaped like them, and even has them painted on his planes.

Is it normal to have that many massage therapists? No. But, his life isn't normal. Would you have preferred it if he went out to the club partying every night and picked up random drunk women from there like many young athletes? Would 50 of those be better?

He's not a normal person. He's a rich, famous athlete. Most of the people he meets want something from him. I can see how trying to find women that aren't after something could be refreshing. Yes, he got in contact with them for massages. Sometimes they hit it off and had sex. They were sober, he didn't drug them. They should have been perfectly capable of saying no, leaving. They didn't. The whole intimidation angle doesn't hold a ton of water with me. These women are accustomed to being around mostly naked men. They knew he was a professional athlete from his Instagram profile going in. They're trained how to react if they feel uncomfortable. There is no evidence of violence.

He likes women. Sometimes he has sex with them. So he must at least be a sex addict? If they never told him no, was he just supposed to know?

Just had an interesting question pop into my head about all of this DW drama, I wonder how many athletes today are doing the same thing Watson did, and looking to Instagram massage therapist for sex on the side? Or even just massages? Is this a thing, or is he alone in this type of thing? Somehow, I doubt others aren't doing it too.

I know that won't change things about the DW situation, but if they want him to talk about women that didn't come forward, then this should be fair game too. The NFL and other sports would not be happy if it came out that this is common practice, yet the Patriots' owner has kind of shown us that it is. It makes me wonder if maybe DW IS GUILTY, and pro sports is just a breading ground for rich rapists.

My word you seem to point the finger at others reaching conclusions while others for doing the same.


Most good attorney's use attacking the opponent as part of their strategy. Every prosecutor in America does the same thing.

Is this what you're talking about? Since when is that an admission of anything?


You mean like this?


And if you're looking for a good attorney to represent you in a lawsuit, this is a bad thing how again?

Desperation is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.

Even other NFL players said it wasn't normal.

Yes, they should have known that kind of behavior was expected and left before it ever happened.


God knows f no violence occurred everything is just peachy. And yes, your own excuses and rationalization shows the very reason why these women are intimidated. People will attack their character, treat them like they're prostitutes and make excuses for their attackers actions. You sit and post why they're intimmidated while saying you don't buy it.


Maybe you should know if sex is what you're expecting you call an escort service and not a massage therapist.

If "by the same thing" you mean go into shadier/less legit areas of industries they regularly deal with to score some notches on their bedpost. NFL athletes have spoken out about Watson's unusually high number of therapists, but I guarantee you that they didn't have sex with a single one of theirs. Robert Kraft was found to be frequenting massage parlors for the same reason that (I believe) Watson was trawling social media for inexperienced massage therapists. The difference between Kraft and Watson was that with Kraft, everything was consensual, and Watson (allegedly) it wasn't. It's a razor-thin line, though.

One other difference. Kraft went to a seedy massage parlor. In watson's case we are supposed to believe that he called dozens of massage therapists that must all be independently shady.

J/C

Fine, all these women are innocent flowers. It's impossible for a woman to ever be the one to initiate sex. It's impossible for women to lie. It's impossible for lawyers to seek to manufacture a case in search of a payday or headlines. There aren't 22 women who would be willing to try to entrap a rich athlete in the whole world.

A guy can't just like sex and accede to frequent advances. A guy has to be a criminal deviant if he has sex with someone other than his (nonexistent) wife.

You all are obviously right.

Haven't been following this thread but had a thought.

If I was Goodell, I wouldn't suspend Watson this season. I would let all the Civil cases run their course and then suspend him next season.
Yes, I would look at his contract set-up. And yes, I would be petty about it.

From the PF thread...

This is what I was trying to get at. There's a line somewhere between creeping on social media for happy ending massages and what the allegations are. We know he's a creep, but is he also a predator?

Seedy Massage Parlor vs For Sale section of Social Media. You're splitting some fine hairs right there.

Yeah, instagram is a seedy for sale section. I don't seem to be the one reaching here.

All 22 of them? Mmmmm hmmmm.....

I didn't say you were reaching. I said you were splitting hairs.

Since the one woman we know the identity of that posted on Instagram about her massage therapy has not been shown to have done is try to use it in any way as a form of solicitation I believe your comparison is slanted in its wording. So I have no idea where you're coming up with this "for sale section" on social media. It was actually a professional page listing her services and contact information. I think if one believes your description of the events was accurate you may have a point. But there's nothing about it that appears that way unless you word it in such a way as you did.

You do realize there are names for people who lump an entire group of women under one category to defame them all using a broad brush as the defense to support the word of one man. Women know them all.

Not sure how you landed there from that one sarcastic post. Gimme a break, I needed a Snickers.

I've never tried to paint them all the same. I've consistently said that I don't know where they lie on the sinner to saint spectrum. You consistently imply that they are on the Saint end of the spectrum. I'm just pointing out that the spectrum has two ends and they could be at the other side. Same for Watson. People keep painting him as the worst kind of sinner, but that's not the only possibility. There's not enough information available to reach a well-supported conclusion.

All that I really know is that some very smart people thought bringing in Watson was the right move. They're known for doing extensive research.

I hope they got it right.

I've never said that they all fall on the Saint side. I have said it's a ridiculous notion to portray that all 24 of his accusers, 22 of them filing suit, are all on the sinner side. Yet they didn't speak to a single victim during their "research". I've said that when almost 50% of all the massage therapists you've seen over the past couple of years have accused you of sexual impropriety it would be crazy to think they're all a bunch of liars. I've shown that even NFL players consider 50 of them is a crazy number. I've stated that while you have used a diversionary tactic in trying to undermine their lawyer because you think he's "looking for fame and publicity", you refuse to hold watson's attorney to the same standard who has a long list of famous clients as well. I've pointed out the success of the victims attorney and the resources he possesses. That he is in the position, just like watson's lawyer, to pick and choose his clients. That accepting clients that are nothing more than a bunch of liars would only serve to undermine his career. So far none of that seems to matter to you.

The "They're all a bunch of hookers and liars" theory has seemed from the beginning to be an attack on all of these women and then it moved to an attack on their attorney which from a standpoint of his legal career has no basis in fact. And then, even after all that, even after one of them getting death threats, you claimed you didn't buy that such victims feel threatened. Of course they do. And there are reasons for that. I don't believe tou understand the bravery it takes for a woman to come forward against a rich and powerful person.

Your argument has been that they can't all be lying. My argument is that I don't know that that's true. I've never said they are all hookers. I have said that they all could be lying, not that they all did lie. I don't know what happened. I do know that there are a multitude of possibilities not ruled out by the available evidence.

Multiple people have given reasons why they didn't reach directly to Buzbee or his clients.

I see you still haven't read the article on Buzbee. Looking at his actions and past critically isn't a diversionary tactic. It's trying to get the full picture and as much information as possible.

I've never said death threats weren't threatening. There's no evidence that Watson threatened them, and based on their alleged actions after the encounters it seems in many cases it's unlikely that they did feel threatened, if those allegations are true.

There are too many conflicting, uncorroborated accusations flying to know what is true from a distance.

Is bravery the primary sentiment fueling their coming forward ,or was it greed, or was it something else? It takes bravery to face a rich and powerful assaulter. That's not necessarily what happened here.

Eating multiple bags of candy a day is crazy to most NFL players. That's part of DK Metcalf's regular diet. Some players have quirks. Some people like variety for variety's sake. Massages really aren't that strange a vice for a guy that works out all the time. Sex isn't either with his likely testosterone level and the release of endorphins it can bring about.

Most OL/IDL (who are primarily the ones I see pointing at the number as being "crazy") probably don't draw as many women as the fit face of the franchise.

I wonder what Ocho Cinco's take would be?

If you go looking for something in particular, you can probably find people (including NFL players) willing to tell that to you.

I've read the entire article. Your points in some cases were ridiculous. Nowhere did Buzzbee admit he took cases for publicity as you claimed. That was false. You made the claim that calling himself a shark was a negative thing yet anyone hiring an attorney would want someone to fight tooth and nail for them. You also seem to dismiss all of the very positive parts of that article and focus only what you claim to be negative.

You're still making excuses for Watson. A massage and sex are two different things. Calling someone for a massage and thinking that is a call for sex is crazy. And death threats? I didn't say watson had anything to do with them. I said women are aware of the dangers they will encounter when accusing rich and powerful people.

Your hypotheticals are ones which are all conclusive for an entire group of 22 women. And in each and everyone of them you indicate what you claim may be true makes the women out to be greedy, money grabbing sex workers and their attorney, who has never been proven of any wrong doing in his law career, is an ambulance chasing scum bag.

And once again you ignore that Watson's attorney also has a long list of famous clients which drew publicity to his law practice which is yet another claim you made as a negative. But I guess it's no longer a negative in your eyes when watson's attorney does the exact same thing. Well life is a two way street. If one of them is a scum bag for getting publicity by taking on famous cases, so is the other one.

"Except when they're not" is, I believe, the main argument that has to be hashed out. Robert Kraft, for one (if he's being honest), would probably argue you on this one.

Yeah, when they are all gathered at the same location at a seedy massage parlor verses contacting 50 different massage therapists from different locations and almost 50% accusing you of sexual improprieties that would be what someone may call similar or comparative? The two scenarios are significantly different. How may women accused Kraft of that again?

You equating business done over social media as some shining beacon of legitimacy is no better than the people assuming these massage therapists were basically hookers. Both are ridiculous assumptions.

Yet that's not what I did at all. I said the assumption that it must be a seedy, prostitution scam was what was an assumption.

Doesn’t look good for Watson. The civil law suits are scheduled to be held in Mars 2023. $40m+ and probably not one single snap in 2022 from our brand new mega expensive QB.

Btw. Andrew Berry says hello.

j/c:

Two plaintiffs suing Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson add negligence claims to lawsuits

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...n-add-negligence-claims-to-lawsuits.html

Has anyone here actually seen the Instagram ads? Since most of the accusers were not actual massage therapists, I'm curious as to how they advertised.

Or Watson plays all of 2022, all the lawsuits quietly go away before 2023, and the NFL hopes everybody is distracted by the next scandal.

Tell my buddy, AB, to keep up the good work and ignore the ill-informed haters.





...I had a long response to Pit, but fat fingered it and lost it switching between tabs. Decided it wasn't worth rewriting as Pit would only reply with the same rote mess he has the past 50 times.

The key words in your response is “ill-informed haters”.

Future will tell who’s hater or not. Anyway in Mars 2023 we will know more if not Watson use his other option and settle these cases with using some of his salary he got from the Browns.

Heartbreaking story. I am very sad for this woman and the 21+ others.

To those of you who doubt these women and assume they’re all only after the money. Let this young lady’s story sink in before make up our mind so fast.

If I close my eyes I hear similar words, similar circumstances and similar sadness that I heard from my youngest daughter when she gave her witness at the court house.

The thing that hurt me most and what brought tears to my eyes was her bottomless shame and that she lost her confidence in judging other peoples intentions. It must be a nightmare for that young woman on the video to know that this famous NFL QB got $230m from the Browns before they even listened to her story.

It will be very hard to full heartily support the Cleveland Browns when Watson is our QB on the field.

That’s one of the things that make me most irritated and disappointed with the owners and Andrew Berry is that they take away some of the joy to support my team apart from their hypocrisy and their lack of moral compass. All the pain and in some cases sadness they brought into many Browns supporter and that we have to argue on internet and maybe at the stadium with other good people and fellow nice supporters.

You must mean like the same drivel you've been spouting since the beginning? Like they could all be money grubbing hookers? How their lawyer must be a money grubbing ambulance chaser? That kind thing?

Reviews of one of the "hooker 'licensed' massage therapists".

https://www.vagaro.com/us04/ashleysolislmt

Let me guess. This was all set up by their crooked lawyer to make her look good, right?

Nope, I meant posts like this where you completely misrepresent what other people post, and come back to your made up opponent's position that no one actually took over and over again.

You're the main person that keeps using the term hookers. Ambulance chaser is another over-simplified misrepresentation.

I just cut through the facade of BS you use to say the same thing. While I am the only one that uses that term, you are the one who uses the description of it.

Quote one place in this thread where the description I use equates to prostitution.

I'll wait.

Nice caveat. So you're saying you haven't in past threads insinuated these women were seedy sex workers? You know, how that was "possible"? I mean really?

I still haven't mentioned it over 4 pages. How many times did you?

You're the one that brings up hookers, to which I'll reply it's possible, though that's not my take. Hooking up with a famous athlete, then feeling scorned when he doesn't make you his sugar baby isn't prostitution. I'm not saying this is what happened either, but it is as supported by the evidence as most other theories.

So, yes, you are the one most often referring to the accusers as sex workers or hookers. Then trying to make it out that it's everyone else. You're the one that seems to have trouble separating prostitution from consensual sex despite your claims to the contrary.

For those who have been reading this from the beginning, nothing more needs to be said. You know, I know and they know. The degradation, attacking of their character and attack of their legal representation has been your focus in the defense of watson. Denial won't change any of that.

You mean me casting doubt on your "he won an award, he's the truth" argument or pointing out the error of your "I don't understand how statistics work" arguments?

Why should anyone try to gather all the available information? Everyone should just swallow your inane conclusions, based on your extensive research and vast personal experience.

Why should anyone try to cast doubt on 22 women collectively to take the word of one man? The very first woman is a licensed massage therapist, not some seedy character or back room pretend therapist. So why would someone attempt to assassinate her character? On what basis? Yet here you are. You expect everyone to consider your unlikely hypotheticals as though they are some sort of realistic outcome. They are not.

What does being a licensed massage therapist have to do with someone's character? They're people just like everyone else. They can be good, bad, indifferent, etc. You keep implying that she has impeccable character. I still have no clue as to her character. Her having good character isn't a given. Her character will be judged on the basis of the evidence that we don't have access to.

You expect people to believe DeShaun being a monster is the only "realistic" outcome. Real life doesn't care about your made up percentages or low likelihood. "Unlikely" things happen. I mean, occasionally you make a good point. This just isn't one of those unlikely instances.

You have an idea about her character. For one thing those who have tried to paint the victims seedy, and maybe even wanted watson to have sex with them, claim most are unlicensed and must be questionable. Secondly you have been show reviews from verified customers and your answer has been "Yeah but you can't believe them". Yet you have shown nothing that reputes any of it. So it seems your claim of not having a clue about her character simply means you refuse to accept the clues you've been given yet have nothing to show why it should be doubted other than, "But it's possible".

...Most of the accusers are unlicensed. You place more relevance on that than I do.

Verified by whom? Her? By some random disreputable website you found? Wow, great "clues."

There are allegations that she asked for 100k settlement, then she goes on to claim that it's not about the money. Is that a clue? (These are formal allegations, and I find it unlikely they would have been made without supporting documentation and evidence)

It's no more flimsy than your online reviews. But I still don't claim to have a firm idea of the character of anyone involved in the whole mess. The only idea of their character that I have is that they are all more complicated than a simple good/bad.

The lack of evidence allows for possibilities. It is what it is. You seem to have more of à need for a sense of certainty than I do. I know that there's a lot I don't know, and there always will be, and that's just the nature of the universe. Your false sense of certainty in this case (and most cases) is irksome to me.

Watson had a reputation among massage therapist in Houston that he wanted a little bit “more”then just massage. Warranted or not it was his reputation there and probably for a reason. What we call his behavior is irrelevant but just the sheer fact that it was there is disturbing and doesn’t help his defense.

It’s highly possible to believe both the 22 women and at the same time Deshaun Watson without making any definitive conclusion. From his perspective he probably thought he did nothing wrong but at the same time many of these women probably felt themselves highly uncomfortable with his behavior, or in some cases humiliated or full of shame. From a legal standpoint he’s so far innocent but the public opinion isn’t totally convinced about his innocence. That’s why we have 22 civil law suits about how to judge his actions.

Many men and women with experience around similar behavior is probably more skeptical then others, I’m one of them. You and many others probably think differently and hold the stance that he’s innocent by the law until proven guilty. Different way of thinking and different conclusions.

When Andrew Berry sat on the podium and stumbled with his words it was because he was uncomfortable, even if he tried really hard to convince us of the opposite. Same with the owners who didn’t even participate despite approve to the largest economical commitment in NFLs history.

So whatever we think about Deshaun Watson his pure presence creates controversy and divided opinions.

Once again you're trying to make a common legal practice sound sinister. People on both sides, accuser and the accused work out out of court settlements all the time. Nothing unusual or sinister about that. Unless of course that's the image you wish to portray. I've seen nothing that brings most all of these accusers characters into question. That's not considered flimsy, that's considered non existent. That's just throwing out questionable allegations based on nothing. I love how you think you're the arbiter of what a disreputable website is or is not.

You seem to want people to believe that if these women had questionable characters watson and his attorney wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftop. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

I didn't say she asked with ill intent for a dark and stormy settlement. I just stated a fact. You're the one that keeps manufacturing anything "sinister." You just keep squaring up with windmills of your own creation.

Recorded conversations and contradictory testimony from people without a financial interest is nothing in your mind? It's enough to make me wonder.

I can't always tell what's reputable, but it was easy to see that the link you keep using as evidence of good reviews is the extreme opposite of reputable. I linked you the results of a check the first time you used it. You conveniently keep ignoring that, and anything else that conflicts with your belief.

You've been beyond ridiculous for as far back as I can remember. You might be rubbing off on me finally. Ugh, *sigh* ...the company I keep on here. No wonder I question the integrity of people I only know of through the internet with as much time as I spend responding to your ...unique and ...creative attacks on facts.

Yes, you weren't trying to question anyone's motives there.

And you have ignored that you claim one attorney is "possibly" an attention seeking attorney without addressing the fact that watson's attorney has a large, famous client list that suggests the exact same thing. You bring up two incidents that have given really no evidence that one of these women are guilty of anything much less 22. And what do you know about that tape? What watson's attorney is claiming. That would mean you are giving the word of one attorney credit that the content actually corroberates what he claims it does while suggest watson's attorney is not reliable. So you suggest that the 22 accusers are doing this for the attention or money but the one who "claims someone said something to her on the phone" might not be doing the exact same thing. 15 minutes of fame comes to mind. But you certainly don't question that.

And you found a place that doesn't consider that website reputable and that's supposed to be some kind of evidence?

At least keep your standards consistent. You claim evidence of facts you haven't substantiated over and over again. Then question the integrity of someone who points it out. Your tactics are a prime example of what happens when desperation sets in.

1. When the action and the claim don't add up, why wouldn't one question the motive?

2. Only one attorney filed lawsuits in this situation. The other responded. I know that a recording with something on it exists. It's been filed into evidence. A lawyer as accomplished as Hardin wouldn't write up evidence that he didn't have. What evidence did Buzbee even write up? Anything other than depositions? It appears that the best evidence he has is what was leaked, and that is effectively nothing. I never claimed that they did it for the money. I said that they could have done it for money, spite, jealousy, or a number of other reasons unassociated to Watson's committing any crime. Again, emphasis on COULD.

Then there's the question of why would any one want the publicity or seek attention for defending alleged sex crimes? It's a dumb supposition. I've explained why I feel Buzbee could be seeking attention. I mean he hired Ted Cruz's political strategist. Defending women looks good for a man who's been trying to get into politics since at least 2002.

3. Yes, when the better business bureau says the company behind a website is shady, most people consider that evidence.

4. Find an example of an unsubstantiated claim of fact that I used. You keep claiming that, then I point to the reference I gave, then you pretend I didn't. Cool trick

Your tactics suck from the jump- When in doubt, use a straw man argument. No desperation here, perhaps you're inhaling your own aroma and projecting.

Simply keep in mind who you are replying to - that will solve a lot of things. (now, watch him attack me)

You're telling me that YOU would go to Instagram to find a licensed massage therapist? PUH-lease. Instagram sounds like the new back page. I get an email newsletter every damn day that features an Instagram model. It's like a what's hot in news and tech for dudes newsletter. The only reason I mention it is that those models, almost all of them, have a paid OnlyFans site too. But they show everything permissible on Instagram. So, what are they selling behind that paywall? So even though I won't simply condemn them for where they chose to do business, I damn sure question their integrity.

....throw in a rolling on the floor guy and win every debate! (in your own mind).

It's only the bedrock of our justice system. That's all.

Another fine stalker addition to the topic with no substance. I can always count on you for that arch.

Actually the cumulative effect of 22 witnesses does carry weight in a court room.

22 Claims?


So Hardin is an "accomplished lawyer" but you portray Buzzbee as an ambulance chasing scum bag attorney. Then you wonder why you are considered heavily bias in one direction. And of course with rumors about watson floating around the massage therapist community he could just be a scum bag. What is an issue with evidence that has been filed is the difference of its actual content and what an attorney wants you to think that content is supposed to mean. I'm really surprised you don't have a better understanding of how all of this works.


No that's only the tip of the iceberg. I've shown you this before but you ignored it then and probably will again.

Rudy Tomjanovich, Warren Moon, Wade Boggs, Rafer Alston, Scottie Pippen, Roger Clemens, Adrian Peterson, Dow Jones, evangelist Joel Osteen and Exxon Mobil have all been Hardin clients.

So to claim he doesn't handle high profile cases to seek attention while Buzzbee does is a crazy approach to a discussion comparing attorneys.


You do realize that you just stated that it was the company behind the web site the BBB questioned and not the web site or its content, right? That's what I meant earlier about someone making a claim about what evidence contains and then when you look at that evidence, that's really not what it says at all.


So you keep making up a story based on hypotheticals, aspersions on 22 women you don't even know accusations undermining the credibility of an attorney that's never been disciplined for wrong doing, basing your diatribe on conjecture then claim I'm the one using a straw man argument? Now that's rich.

1. I didn't question 22 claims here. I questioned the motive of one particular claim. You keep trying to rope specifics into one giant generality. This isn't a case involving every sex crime victim ever. It only involves these specific accusers, who may or may not be victims of sex crimes. 22 claims are only good evidence if the people making them are found credible. Evidence has been submitted that claims that many of them are not. I'll wait to let a judge and jury decide the quality of that evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

2a. The difference is that Buzbee hasn't even claimed to have solid evidence of wrongdoing. As far as "solid" evidence, he has (/claims to have) records that show massages were scheduled. That's not really incriminating. On the other hand, Watson's side claims to have evidence of the accusers actually committing crimes (blackmail and extortion.)

2b. I'm also not looking at the motive of every case they've ever taken. I'm looking at the motives for taking this particular case. It would seem to be the most relevant to...this case.

3. You don't seem to understand how content aggregation sites work or what they are. They don't make their own content. They pull it from elsewhere. Using it as a source/evidence is silly, you know, considering it's not the source of the information.

4. Hypotheticals aren't claims of fact. They aren't aspersions. They aren't accusations. They are legitimate possibilities based on the available evidence. If you find evidence that makes any of the hypotheticals impossible, show it.
I'm not claiming that you made arguments that you didn't (straw man arguments.) You do, frequently. I'm responding to direct quotations.

I see. Their entire careers being similar in terms of taking on famous clients is meaningless when trying to portray a single case. Sure, let's ignore everything in their careers leading up to this and act like their pattern isn't the same. Another great dodge. So in this case, watson being famous, your claim is that Buzbee took the case for attention but Hardin didn't do the same thing because he is in it only"to protect an innocent man"? Is that what you're going with here?

You still aren't getting it. An attorney for watson is going to try and twist a settlement offer into a blackmail and extortion claim. That's not evidence. That's Hardin's job. To make the victims look like the perpetrator. You do realize that these are 22 separate cases unless they are all tried together? Even then it involves 22 separate incidents. There's nothing nefarious about people in litigation to propose settlement offers.

I do realize that hypotheticals can be delivered in a way to cast aspersions upon the character of those you wish to throw those hypotheticals towards. I understand that you can reach for highly unlikely hypotheticals to achieve that goal. It's a nuance people use all the time.

Not if there isn't evidence to back up the claims or doesn't add anything new to the case.

You seem to tend to speak for 12 jurors in every case. That's not the way it works. Jurors decide verdicts and the weight the evidence holds or does not hold is at their sole discretion. These are civil cases. All you need to do is convince a jury something is more likely than not to have happened. 22 witnesses claiming the same type of incident was perpetrated by the same defendant will certainly be a strong factor considered by a jury in a civil case. Unless of course you actually believe watson's defense can undermine the character of all 22 women in the eyes of a jury.

You asked a question and I answered it. Even though the burden of proof is lower/lighter in civil cases, the burden is still on the accusers.

Splitting the dirty bits of DW to the tailgate forum didn't do squat to make this settle down in the PF thread. Hmm...

It's unfortunate.

I know that. I am glad you finally understand.

In any event, they will still need evidence and more than their word.

For every person on the jury who thinks like you and has their mind made up, there will be as many or more who need to see some proof before ruling for the plaintiff(s).

Some of us take things seriously and believe in the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

In the end, it is probably headed towards a settlement. It's what Watson needs. The what the girls and their attorney want.

Along these lines, I think the defense will have a much better chance of winning a trial if they can take one at a time. Unless the prosecuting side is allowed to "cross pollinate" between different cases/trials, it would be easier for the defense to poke holes in stories if they're tried one at a time.

This is where I'm at. I'll add that I feel really dumb. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but if he is I'm going to feel very conflicted between accepting/condoning what he did in the name of my fandom... and that makes me feel dumb because NFL is just grown men playing a game (at the end of the day).

Do you really think any of us others wants a unfair verdict or that we want that he will be buried with hate and shame if he’s totally innocent. Honestly?

I have daughters who’re both older and younger then Deshaun and every time I write about his situation on this board I’m torn between what’s right or wrong when sharing my thoughts. It’s impossible to have a strong opinion without being intellectual dishonest in one way or another. Either we’re legally correct, and that’s perfectly ok, or we take the morally right direction but expose our self against arguments like “legally innocent until proven guilty”.

There is no perfect solution that covers all angles because it’s so much more then just legal technicalities or just having conflicted moral doubts.

The more I read and think about this the more I land in a standpoint that a financial settlement is the best sweet spot to move on without creating more controversy. Then when it’s done we all have to live with that there is no perfect verdict, no perfect solution or a happy ending to this. We’re all winners and losers in our arguments and conclusions.

This is a young black man with all the shameful history of injustice and double standards that follows men with his background. Don’t believe for a second that I’m not aware of this and that’s trouble me. Would I have judged Baker the same way? Trying to put blame on Deshaun Watson without any “hard” proof and only rely 22 women’s testimony doesn’t make sense, but the opposite that not believe in these women doesn’t make sense either.

Legally guilty or not my feelings are the same and I simply don’t want to end up in a position where I must chose. That’s why a settlement is also my personal preferred solution.

IMO, the legal side of the conversation and the moral/ethical conversation are almost two separate discussions, for a couple reasons.

Legally, a lack of evidence doesn't mean NOTHING happened.... and a sorta inverse of that is that just because there are 22 accusations doesn't mean he's guilty (legal definition). On top of that, even if NONE of the lawsuits rises to the level that has him sweating in a courtroom, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone is cool with cheering him on on Sundays.

You and I obviously disagree that if several witnesses testify to watson's behavior and the character of those women can not be impeached, that won't convince a jury that watson is more likely guilty than not. Each witness is a form of evidence. That's the burden in a civil trial.

You seem to think that if say for example, 15 women whom the defense can show you no background that will convince you that nothing in their past makes their word questionable, jurors will not take that heavily into account. You along with others seem to think there needs to be some overwhelming body of physical evidence in a he said/she said civil suit. Evidence you already know does not exist.

Sorry, I haven't read the conversation, just wanted to make a point.

During the owner's meetings it was reported that the league was really angry about the Browns/Watson contract being backloaded to allow him to not suffer financially if he is suspended THIS year. By kicking the can down the road, the league defeats that move. If they suspend him in a future season, it will cost him more than if they had gone with a standard contract.

j/c

Satire but not so far from the reality.......

Clause Voiding Guaranteed Money In Event Of Injury Sustained During Sexual Assault

CLEVELAND, OH—Stressing that the team needed to safeguard their financial interests should their new quarterback miss games, Cleveland Browns officials confirmed Monday that Deshaun Watson’s contract includes a clause voiding his guaranteed money in the event of an injury sustained during a sexual assault. “Like all NFL contracts, Deshaun’s includes language regarding typical club protections, including our right to withhold payments should he miss game time due to hurting himself by engaging in a potentially hazardous activity, like basketball, skydiving, or forcibly abusing someone,” said Browns general manager Andrew Berry, adding that the team didn’t want to be on the hook for Watson’s $230 million salary if he breaks his hand punching a woman. “We’re excited to have a player of Deshaun’s caliber leading our football team, but we also need our players to put the team first, and refrain from participating in any off-the-field activities that carry risks, like riding a motorcycle or restraining a massage therapist. What if he experiences a head or eye injury because he’s locked a woman inside a room and is holding her down and she injures him trying to flee? What if he strains his groin trying to force a woman’s hand to touch his penis? That’s something that we as the Cleveland Browns organization need to protect ourselves from. We understand that players have lives and aren’t going to stop doing everything they want, but they need to know that these activities can carry financial consequences.” When reached for comment, Watson’s agent, David Mulugheta, said that he strongly advised his client against landing in hot water with the team by posting any Instagram pictures of himself skiing, riding a moped, or committing sexual assault.

https://www.theonion.com/deshaun-watson-s-contract-includes-clause-voiding-guara-1848795168

Hah!
I often wonder just how far from satire the Onion really even is these days

Nothing like having your favorite team drug through the onion patch. How embarrassing as a fan.