4merper4mer

So…..another whiny post about your supposed favorite team. Got it. Doesn’t sound like another phony to me at all. Look for about 12 complaints a week. But probably 14 gloating I told you so’s every time the Bills lose a game.

An article that came out yesterday was highly favorable to Araiza………but………it was an article with second hand accounts…….not an official statement by anyone. There won’t be any prosecution unless something very drastically changes so it does appear his name has been cleared from a criminal standpoint. That said, it is pretty clear that the civil case is still pending and while it may seem baseless to many it still has the capability of being a hornet’s nest to any team signing him. Every team has Tim Graham-esque beat reporters looking to get clicks by distorting things. Graham’s example was the definition of “direct quote”, another set of reporters would likely use similar tactics. Maybe a team will sign him now. I doubt it. If the case continues on its current trajectory I’d guess either 24 or 25.

Personally I think the Bills made the right choice for the Bills and for Araiza who would have had to endure a firestorm for which no 22yo is equipped.

Fine whatever but I could do without the superfluous “u’s” in every other word.

The Araiza thing or the Lucky Charms aisle? Link for either?

Geolocation as reported by Yahoo? The article was not taken from the DA’s account. It was taken from a person in a meeting likely representing Araiza. I could say that geolocation put you in the Lucky Charms aisle at Walmart and although there is a good chance this would be true, I still just made it up.

How do we do due process for punters? Net yards per kick?

The article said? The article from Yahoo? This is now what we must accept as objective truth? I’m not saying it’s false but it wasn’t exactly unambiguous. His friend and “other information” indicated he wasn’t there. I’m not in any way calling anyone a liar but it is not a first hand account or official release. It is a second hand account likely given by a source with a vested interest. You were absolutely correct to wait for actual facts but this article does not contain objective facts. Do I find it likely to be largely accurate? Sure. Could I be wrong and could the actual facts be different than what was written in this article? Yes.

I’m not sure I’m following. You’re outraged that she made stuff up, then her lawyer made it even worse? Ok cool I’m with you there. But if his lawyer simply made up a story that his phone showed him elsewhere, that’s cool? Shouldn’t truth be important across the board? My point is that there is an objective truth to this whole thing but it doesn’t make it easier to reconstruct. Over time we can probably get close enough to the real truth to make assumptions, but at no point does that make it ok for one side to make up lies in an effort to sway or expedite. In the initial reporting of this whole thing, the most iron clad truth I could find is that both lawyers were complete and utter morons.

He’s more likely to understand my picture.

Lol charity. Who got that $$$$$$$ and how did the utilize it? Uh oh. Logic. Brace yourself. Incoming!!!!!! Now THAT Kellerman/ESPN pocket is one deep enough to sue.

Ham rots. Those styrofoam things in Lucky Charms will last longer.

Do you live on planet Earth?

I’ve got it! Sign him back and trade him and Ed Oliver for Hopkins. It would consolidate so many ridiculous threads into one . Plus Araiza sort of sounds like Arizona.

He told you to “just stop”. Why didn’t you obey? Plus they have Lucky Charms at discounted prices!

You’ve convinced me. We should have paraded the 22 year old kid in front of a hostile national media week after week after week to show our support. It would have made his life far worse, but we may have netted 2 extra yards per punt. Did your mommy buy you Lucky Charms every time you pouted?

Family sometimes has to make difficult decisions which are better for everyone in the long term. Shirley you must be aware of this.

From an objective source or his attorney?

That was her lawyer’s re-telling of the contents of the phone call. It was not a recording heard by a reporter, it was not a police transcript. It was her lawyer, giving his account of the call. Can you see a difference here? I must have missed the geolocation in the article. All I saw was his friend’s account and “other” information.

I believe your “point” was that I called Araiza a bad person, which I clearly did not. Based on this, I explained what I said in 3rd grade level step by step terms. I politely offered to further clarify if you were still having trouble the 3rd grade level. I have to say I’m surprised that you didn’t try to object to anything specific at all. Let’s try again: I have no reason to believe Araiza is a bad person. Does that help with your reading comprehension or should i spell it out with phonics? I would say I’m curious about how you so badly misinterpreted what I wrote, but I’m not because nothing you wrote is based on any kind of logic at all.

I disagree with most of what @IronMaidenBills has written over the past few hours in this thread but on this one aspect I agree with him. It’s unfortunate that this woman…..girl at the time…..represented herself as 18 and that Araiza and others apparently bought it……but it’s pretty clear she did so. She is on film doing it albeit at a different party. To me it is sad that stuff like this happens…..to me a 22 year old male probably shouldn’t just take someone at their word that they are 18…..but “to me” doesn’t really matter. If you were going to cut all players who at one point in their lives had used questionable judgement, every team in the league would be way under the salary cap.

The last line said that the Bills hurt Araiza the punter but did the right thing for Araiza the person. What the Bills did was: 1. Cut the punter reducing his career by 1 year, perhaps more. 2. Gave the person back 80+ hours a week that would have been spent on football activities that could now be used to defend his name. 3. Removed him from a spotlight of unrelenting and unpredictable social justice warriors like Tim Graham who would have come fully prepared to make up definitions for things like “direct quote” and get as many clicks as possible out of the situation. This also took away a large part of the woman’s lawyer’s soap box and publicity hunt. 4. Decline their prerogative to ask for their signing bonus back based on “character clauses”. This would have been a dumb move but my guess is they could have sought it. I re-read my last line a few times to try to determine how you took it to mean I think Araiza is a terrible person. Illiteracy on your part is all I could come up with. If you’re not illiterate maybe you can further explain what you meant and how exactly you think I judged Araiza as a horrible person by what I wrote.

Apparently you can’t read.

People like yourself? Who are those types of people? Do you mean those who don’t look at anything as truth because a person calls it truth? For the record I didn’t believe or disbelieve the woman, her lawyer, Araiza, or his lawyer about the underlying facts at any point in all of this. I did realize that both lawyers displayed themselves as complete morons. You can check back on my posts if you’d like. Anyone who thought they could determine truth by the limited data available in the press, much of which had been proven false even back then, has a flaw in their definition of fact versus opinion/guess. I had a guess…..still do….but choose not to state it because I realize it is a guess. At no point then or now do I portray our current societal trends as fair. I do realize however that they exist and simply wishing they would go away is childish. The Bills organization was in an impossible position in many ways because they had to think of not just Araiza the punter, but also Araiza the person. Their decision definitely harmed Araiza the punter but I strongly believed it was 1000000000000% the right one for Araiza the person.

You misunderstand. Tim Graham is our superior in every way. This has been established so accept it. Sometimes when he makes a mistake we just have to move on. Other times we have to alter objective reality to bend to his will. Because of his superior morality and intellect, the third option of pointing out his mistakes or having him acknowledge them does not exist. Can you imagine the ramifications of that? If we knew he was capable of being wrong, who would we turn to for guidance when the next crisis he helped manufacture came along?