NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[Beef]

(05-11-2012 01:20 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  

I was the one that said clearly. What I meant was that it is clear that it does not acknowledge any of those things. White stated on record that the declaration "acknowledged the nature of the program". It does not. It doesn't go into the nature of the program AT ALL. All it does is talk about denying it exists.

White also stated on record that it "acknowledged his participation in it". It does not at all. Go back and read it closely and copy and paste here the exact text that acknowledges his participation. You can't because it isn't there.

White also stated, once again on record, that it "acknowledged that he was told to lie". It does not at all. Once again, show me the exact text that proves that he was told to lie.

Your fellow member Falconidae acknowledges all of this.

You act as though you think I'm the only one who has this opinion. It is now widely excepted in the media that the declaration "clearly" does not relay what Goodell and White claimed that it relayed prior to its appearance in full public view.

You can't defend this. It is right there in black and white. Or rather, it ISN'T there in black and white.

This is nothing more than you choosing to misrepresent what the declaration really means, how it's context should be interpreted, and why it was really written.

Mary Jo White is absolutely correct.

It acknowledges the existance of a bounty because it is completely irrational to try to pass blame on to Williams and Vitt for something that didn't exist.

It does acknowledge Hargroves participation by the mere fact he was singled out by coaches and directed to do/say William's and Vitt's side of the story (be on the same page). If he wasn't involved in bounties, then there is no rational reason to tell him to play dumb and stay on the same page.

It does acknowledge Hargrove was told to lie. For Christ sakes, THAT'S IT'S PURPOSE! He thinks that by throwing Williams and Vitt under the bus by infering they told him to lie, it will lessen his punishment. But use your head... If there's really no bounty, then how could passing culpability to someone else for something that doesn't really exist possibly lessen his punishment????????

Guess what... IT CAN'T! That's why the declaration is FUTILE/WORTHLESS/STUPID AS FUCK unless there REALLY IS A BOUNTY!

And EVERYONE knows that's exactly what it infers in it's real context.

Your bizzarro world delusional and overwhelmingly dishonest interpretation of the declaration's context is BS. You're misrepreseting it and essentially lying because you refuse to state the truth about what it REALLY infers.

Choosing to ignore the true context and spin something other than the truth is the same as lying. You are not fooling anyone. (except maybe falconidae)