Rob's House

Are you 12? A woman's menstrual cycle may be icky to you, but to adults it's just a part of life. What is it about this that so offends you?

I even think scumbag may be going too far. He might well be, but I can't draw that conclusion just from this. He sounded like he was worried about cultural perception more than anything (remember, he's 80), rather than necessarily speaking out of hatred.

Am I the only one that finds this predictably overblown? All I heard was an 80 year old Jewish guy saying he doesn't want his mistress publicly associating with black folks. I realize that's not cool, but is it really the great outrage it's being played up as?

Funny how Obama appoints, retains, & defends the one who is a high ranking government official, but publicly condemns the one who is a private citizen.

Be careful. I said that about Landry Jones lasting to the 4th last year. That was a tough one to swallow. And I'm out a hat.

Obama weighs in http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-sterling-even-obama-weighs-in-on-la-clippers-owners-comments/ Seriously?

I don't care whether the claim has merit or not. She should be shot in the face for putting those parents through that.

Are you analogizing Martin to a girl who has been raped?

I wouldn't call the complaint a "wealth" of information. I saw those figures too but it was unclear what that was in reference to. I didn't get the impression that those were wages paid for their services. If so it would change the landscape, but were that reimbursement for expenses it's a horse of a different color. Since you've got the wealth of information could you clarify that for me?

Again, it may be the case, but none of that necessarily rises to the level of intentional and systematic breaking down of another. I'll share an anecdote to illustrate: When I was in HS we nick named one of our friends PB (kitty Boy), which in fairness he earned, but he carried that throughout HS. Another friend was nicknamed "Dupe" Because he'd buy anything, & we told him repeatedly of the sexual exploits we intended to have with his sister. One of my best friends was Iranian & I can't tell you the number of camel !@#$er jokes we laid on him. None of it was mean spirited (w/ the possible exception of PB), and no one was being" remorselessly broken down," but to an independent third party reading transcripts of our interactions one might erroneously draw that conclusion. The difference is no one had a meltdown. I did have a friend as an adult who flipped out & stormed off because we made fun of his Halo prowess (which was somewhat ongoing). It was !@#$ing weird and no one saw it building to that. Again, I'm not saying whether these guys knew or should have known that Martin was crumbling underneath it all, but guys !@#$ with each other. Granted, these guys took it a little further than most, but they're also high testosterone alpha males (and apparently an obnoxious bunch at that) playing the most physical position of a very physicAl sport. Based on that evidence I can't say, but it's plausible they didn't realize the affect it was having on Martin until it was too late.

Everything I've seen suggests the only compensation they receive is a free game ticket and parking pass which are incidental perks. If you have info that suggests otherwise I'm open to changing positions.

They weren't doing work for money.

Except that being a cheerleader is not a job. The issue is whether they were employees. I've taken unpaid work before, recently as it were, but I never referred to it as a job, and although I added value and helped others make money, I did not expect a paycheck. And if I went back after the fact and sued for pay for a role that was never a job to begin with, I'd feel like I was !@#$ing over all those who came after me who are going to have a harder time getting that gig because I just showed the "employer" how much of a hassle the role I filled can present. And whether Bills players get paid to sign autographs has less than nothing to do with it.

Bills Board: 1. Ha Ha Clinton-Dix 2. Tre Mason 3. Bradley Robey 4. Anthony Barr 5. Clay Mathews 6. Johnny Football 7. Dri Archer 8. Terry Bridgewater 9. Andre Williams 10. Seantrell Henderson My Board 1. Clowney 2. Mack 3. Robinson 4. Manziel 5. Carr 6. Evans 7. Matthews 8. Watkins 9. Lewan 10. Dennard

I'm sorry, but this is just an absurd response. What's worse is you try to compensate for the lack of any substantive argument with moral outrage. First off, the case has jack squat to do with groping. If you don't believe me read the complaint. There's a link in this thread. Secondly, there are no allegations that the team sanctioned and endorsed said groping. As far as the grooming standards, so what. Were they doing live tampon inspections or giving these girls guidelines? The tampon part sounds more like advice to prevent against embarassing accidents, and the eating part reads like Emily Post. Feel free to chime in though when you have some vague idea what the issue is. I'm still not sure what the point is. If you're saying the team should have voluntarily paid these girls to be cheerleaders I won't argue with you. But that's not the issue here.

I assume the Jills were low priority to begin with and now that it looks to be a source of trouble they'd rather just not deal with it at all. So the selfish acts of these 5 girls ruined it for the rest of them.

To be an employee don't you first have to have a job?

Never suggested he was told what to think, the NFL hired him and thus is his client, and burning your client on the most high profile assignment you've ever had is bad for business. Never suggested that it was a criminal matter, nor did I suggest the NFL was held to a reasonable doubt standard. I was making a point about the level of certainty. I haven't read the ACA in it's entirety either, but I've read enough and studied enough to draw some conclusions. I invited you to share any compelling evidence you came upon while reading it. I didn't like Incognito before this story broke.

I wouldn't touch him for that reason. If he were a reclamation project who came for a lower price and/or had something to prove to extend his career it would be one thing, but having heard the rumors about him trying to constantly show up the coach in Detroit, and having to pay him top dollar, and knowing that he has the attitude that he's untouchable, it just doesn't add up to a favorable prospect IMO.

I have not read the entire Wells report, but if there is compelling evidence within that report that you found persuasive and you're able to summarize it, that would be much appreciated. So far from what I have read of the report and the summaries and commentaries surrounding it - well, let's just say if this were a criminal matter I'm yet to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm really curious what about this "pattern of harrassment" has you so certain. To your second point, you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. I didn't suggest this was some grand conspiracy between the NFL, media, and Ted Wells, and I find it more than a bit disingenuos of you to make such an insinuation (unless nuance just isn't your thing). The whole thing is a lot more subtle than that, and I thought the Clabo comments made that clear. Wells is a lawyer who was paid to do a job for his client. I didn't suggest for a second that he fabricated any of it. I merely suggested that he may have characterized the events he accurately reported in a way that slants toward the narrative that protects his client's image - If you think that's an outlandish scenario perhaps hou may be a bit naive. And finally, you, not I, are the one pretending to know the truth of the matter. I suggested there are other reasonable inferences to be drawn from the events as they've been reported and gave an example of one such inference. You said Ted Wells is JFK meets Jesus Christ and thus his word is the gospel.

At least he said "people of color" rather than "black and brown boys." Anytime I hear that phrase I know I'm listening to a self-righteous blow hard. It makes me just !@#$ing cringe. Nails on the chalkboard, man.

It's similar to being completely and utterly devoid of Cheesy Poofs.

That's a fairly selective interpretation. Of course the NFL and media guys agreed with it. The media pushed that narrative, and Wells and the NFL gave them a watered down version of the story they'd pushed. That was the most obvious and probable outcome from the outset. The counter to that is the number of guys from that locker room that took Incognito's back (and how few took Martin's back). I think it was Tyson Clabo who said of one of the incidents of the Wells report that a particular event in that report may have been factually accurate insofar as the event took place and the same things were said, but the way in which it took place was completely mischaracterized. As far as the remorselessness bit, I'm not standing here like some others pretending I know what happened. From the evidence that's come forward it's entirely possible that Incognito, Jerry, and Pouncey got their kicks trying to destroy Martin emotionally. On the other hand, it's quite possible that they all thought Martin was a part of their clique and the **** talking and ball busting was all in good fun amongst friends. It's entirely possible that Martin was melting down on the inside, but putting up a front on the outside, like he's in on the joke, and that they couldn't see through the facade. My opinion is that those who chime in with great certainty are telling us nothing about Incognito or Martin, but are rather telling us a lot about themselves.

This garbage is just as irritating as the "racism" b.s. Maybe he bullied Jonathan Martin and maybe he didn't. The ONLY evidence of this abuse is that Jonathan Martin had a melt down and then blamed his teammates. There is no evidence that Incognito was "remorselessly" or knowingly breaking that individual down, and you stating it as though it were fact tells us nothing more than that you're the kind of person who passes conjecture off as fact. And if you think the Wells report is an objective accounting of events you're a sucker.

Because the directions she gave (not the subsequent email) describe a good way to increase the risk of ending up dead. The only communication you want to have with an intruder is the sound of you chambering a round. Anything more is unnecessary and creates a situation where you're on the lesser end of asymmetrical information. You want to find cover, "lie in wait", call the cops if you can do so undetected, and if the person still decides to pursue you, you take him out as soon as you have a clear shot. It's not even that there's never a situation where you want to hold someone at gunpoint while you call the cops, but that's more of a one off than a rule of thumb. If you're in a situation that calls for you to point a loaded gun at someone you best be ready to shoot. In this situation you would do well to ask "who's there" before they get through the door. The threat is sufficiently different, but that way you've established your respective roles before you're face to face. That way there's no question of the scenario you describe, & if a dangerous threat is on notice & comes through your door anyway....well, if it's me, at that point we're through talking.