+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - RFlagg - 05-16-2012 10:10 AM
Is it sad that I'm expecting something like this to come from Guido soon?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-16-2012 10:34 AM
(05-16-2012 01:06 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Okay. How about this? This was published over two months ago on March 9th! Here is the link:
Mike Ornstein's association with New Orleans Saints and bounty scandal a perplexing situation
Among the 18,000 documents league investigators examined is an email from Ornstein to Saints' coaches last season in which he pledged money for a knockout blow to Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers before the NFL kickoff game, according to a source familiar with the situation.
That same source insists Ornstein sent the message in jest. Payton reportedly told NFL investigators last week he did not read the email.
Whether the NFL buys either claim remains to be seen. This isn't a court of law. The league can and will rule on its own volition.
____________________________________________
I have put up with a lot of shit here but I am making nothing up. This was reported two frickin' months ago!!!
Two months ago before any of you even knew about the email it was already identified as "in jest"! This isn't anything new or anything I made up.
Two months ago Sean Payton TOLD the league when he first talked to them that he had never read the email ... just as I said!!
Some of you claim to know so much about what is going on but are so misinformed about the facts.
You obviously didn't get the question I was asking. That is a freaking article from the picayune...you think I'm gonna believe them and their bias state when all they said is "Payton reportedly told the NFL he didn't read the email."
So once again...
Where is the statement from Payton?
I don't see it in that article, do you? I don't even see a statement from Ornstein advising the comment was in jest. Matter of fact Ornstein declined to comment. That was in the article...did you see that?
Here goes a Guido comment alert?
Maybe Ornstein didn't comment because he knew that comment wasn't in jest?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-16-2012 10:38 AM
(05-16-2012 01:06 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I have put up with a lot of shit here but I am making nothing up. This was reported two frickin' months ago!!!
Two months ago before any of you even knew about the email it was already identified as "in jest"! This isn't anything new or anything I made up.
Two months ago Sean Payton TOLD the league when he first talked to them that he had never read the email ... just as I said!!
Some of you claim to know so much about what is going on but are so misinformed about the facts.
Oh and you have NO clue of what I know and when I know it so just stop it. The shit you get is because of the antics and games you play when a question is asked to you. So in my post I asked the question multiple times so that you could not ignore it and even with that you ignored the other questions in the post.
I didn't agree with Beef and others before in regards to you being a troll, but seeing post after post ignoring, deferring, and just incorrectly answering questions you can't spin makes it seem like you are.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-16-2012 10:50 AM
I just realized that everybody asked the same thing I asked, so now you have about 3 or 4 people asking for a Payton quote
AND
I just noticed something else. You said earlier that ORNSTEIN said the comment was in jest or an ongoing joke, but that's not true. Ornstein declined the to comment. As the article states the "source" INSISTS that the comment was an ongoing joke or in jest. He didn't confirm with Ornstein or anything like that. He INSISTS. So here comes another Guido quote...
Could it be because the "source" was trying to cover his ass after he presented the email and he was afraid the Saints would find out it was him?
Could he be afraid a bounty would be put out on him if they found out??? (That was really a joke)
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 05-16-2012 11:06 AM
The only reason someone would "insist" the email was an ongoing joke like this, as if he knows Ornstein and Payton, is if he's part of the Saint's organization or a represetntative of one of the two. And if that's the case, this "proof" that it's a joke and Payton didn't read it is no proof of any kind. It's simply conjecture from a biased member or representative of those involved.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-16-2012 11:06 AM
(05-16-2012 05:03 AM)Drathdon Wrote: Guido, here is a simple logic test you should pass easily.
The NFL has come out and said there was a bounty on Cam Newton. Correct?
There has been nothing shown whatsoever mentioning Cam other than that statement. Correct?
That would mean, unless you believe they made up Cam's name from thin air (and even for you, that would be a stretch... implying the NFL was that reckless and far gone), that there is some "evidence" we have not seen. Correct? If we have seen all the "evidence" - which you think you can disprove - then were did Cam's name come from?
So since you know, via these simple steps, there is stuff you have not seen, why not just wait to form a complete opinion until you have that "evidence"? Keep posting the news as it comes out, and comment on it, but don't set your heels so firmly in place. Otherwise your going to feel like I did after doing what you are doing for Vick (it wasn't him, it was his friends/relatives using his money without him knowing) right up until the Feds showed they had proof he choked and killed dogs with his own hands.
Trust me, you don't want that feeling. I will never turn against Ryan/Smith/TD for any mistakes they make in the future (acknowledge them, but not turn against them) because they pulled me from the burning wreckage of misery what my fandom had become at that point.
Just friendly advice, fan to fan.
Go Falcons!
As I posted earlier, there was a second email from Ornstein that he sent in October 2010 from a halfway house soon after his release from federal prison. He once again included a joking mention about putting $5000 on Cam Newton. That is and has been public knowledge just as was the earlier email. The difference is that the media actually got a copy of the first email.
The apparent "evidence" of a bounty on Newton is exactly the same as that of the bounty on Rodgers. A jesting mention in an email.
Oh, and I really do appreciate the advice. I mean that. But, I just need some very serious questions answered by the league and I hope those answers come soon.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-16-2012 11:11 AM
(05-16-2012 11:06 AM)Beef Wrote: The only reason someone would "insist" the email was an ongoing joke like this, as if he knows Ornstein and Payton, is if he's part of the Saint's organization or a represetntative of one of the two. And if that's the case, this "proof" that it's a joke and Payton didn't read it is no proof of any kind. It's simply conjecture from a biased member or representative of those involved.
I have to be objective and say that is not the only reason someone would insist it was a joke. They could be insisting it was a joke because it actually is. I doubt it personally but your reason isn't the only reason although a very valid reason.
It is however a fabrication on Guido's part to say this article from the PICAYUNE, which is as biased as they come is confirmation of Payton's admittance of never reading the email and also a fabrication of how ORNSTEIN said it was in jest when in fact Ornstein didn't say that. The source insisted it.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-16-2012 11:18 AM
(05-16-2012 10:50 AM)ATLBound Wrote: I just realized that everybody asked the same thing I asked, so now you have about 3 or 4 people asking for a Payton quote
AND
I just noticed something else. You said earlier that ORNSTEIN said the comment was in jest or an ongoing joke, but that's not true. Ornstein declined the to comment. As the article states the "source" INSISTS that the comment was an ongoing joke or in jest. He didn't confirm with Ornstein or anything like that. He INSISTS. So here comes another Guido quote...
Could it be because the "source" was trying to cover his ass after he presented the email and he was afraid the Saints would find out it was him?
Could he be afraid a bounty would be put out on him if they found out??? (That was really a joke)
At the time of that posted article Ornstein's mother was seriously ill and he declined an interview. He did later comply and did say in an interview within the last couple of weeks that the mentions of bounties on Rodgers and Newton were both in jest and were simply part of an ongoing joke with Williams. I posted that article in one of the other threads.
And I posted the reference to Payton's telling the league that he had never read the Rodgers email and that he told them about the ongoing joke. The source would have had to have been in the room. That came from Jeff Duncan of the Times-Picayune over two months ago. I suspect that the "source" was his private counsel. I doubt if anyone from the league that was in there would have shared that. I know Jeff through occasional correspondence and he would never publish anything from any "source" that he didn't trust completely.
I personally have no doubt that Payton did indeed tell the league that he had never read the email before having it presented to him in the interview. I also have no doubt that he referred to an ongoing joke about a bounty at the same time.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-16-2012 11:22 AM
(05-16-2012 11:11 AM)ATLBound Wrote: I have to be objective and say that is not the only reason someone would insist it was a joke. They could be insisting it was a joke because it actually is. I doubt it personally but your reason isn't the only reason although a very valid reason.
It is however a fabrication on Guido's part to say this article from the PICAYUNE, which is as biased as they come is confirmation of Payton's admittance of never reading the email and also a fabrication of how ORNSTEIN said it was in jest when in fact Ornstein didn't say that. The source insisted it.
Ornstein did say it was a joke, as well. And as for the Times-Picayune, they absolutely butchered the Saints when this first came out. Jeff Duncan constantly catches hell for being too tough on the Saints. He explains that he covers the Saints and he is not a fan of the Saints. Therefore, if he ever writes something in favor of the Saints you have to know he knows what he is talking about.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 05-16-2012 11:24 AM
(05-16-2012 11:11 AM)ATLBound Wrote: I have to be objective and say that is not the only reason someone would insist it was a joke. They could be insisting it was a joke because it actually is. I doubt it personally but your reason isn't the only reason although a very valid reason.
It is however a fabrication on Guido's part to say this article from the PICAYUNE, which is as biased as they come is confirmation of Payton's admittance of never reading the email and also a fabrication of how ORNSTEIN said it was in jest when in fact Ornstein didn't say that. The source insisted it.
You misread the context. I wasn't speaking about the validity of it being a joke or not. I was only explaining that for someone to "insist" in this case, that this is only that person's opinion. They are not quoting Ornstein or Payton. And for them to give there opinion like this, they obviously know them. Which of course means they're biased.