Robert James
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Robert James
-
-
4 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:
I linked that and said the same thing you did like 4 pages before copy paste did ??
Great minds . . . .
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
He lost me at "first of all, Mike Rodak, who had this story, is a superb reporter."
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:
He was a 5th round rookie not ready to play, we all knew that.
He was was put in because the starter was horrible for 5 of 5 weeks.
I’m more confident in saying Nate may have an upside and knowing TT will never be a franchise guy.
1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:LMAO...geezus its getting deep now. TT was not awful the whole season going into the SD game and we were a playoff team at that point. I mean geezus...TT has made multiple pro bowls, wining record, great TD:INT ratio, etc...and you are saying NP has more potential? LMAO...NP would slap his mama to have even half the career TT has right now. I mean we just traded TT for a premium pick so he could start on another team while we couldn't trade NP for a Domino's pizza right now.
Its interesting, that so many people madly in love with NP are the same who hated TT to no end. Seems you have this crush on NP still just because he isn't TT. I mean not one of you have actually said one single credible or factual positive about NP...its always just he isn't TT.
NEWSFLASH: TT is gone...move on already. Just because NP isn't TT doesn't make him a viable prospect.
I didn't see any "deep love" or "mad crush" for Peterman. He said Peterman "may have an upside" and he feels he knows TT "will never be a franchise guy." Mildly positive toward Peterman (saying he has a chance to be better) and saying only that TT has shown himself not to be elite. Both seem utterly reasonable to me.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, GoBills808 said:
Accuracy is overrated
Offense is overrated
-
I think this is a fair assessment, and seeing it laid out leaves me feeling more positive about how the off-season was handled. The downgrade at QB was a necessary move -- we'd seen Tyrod's ceiling and the uncertainty of bringing in new potential successors results in an understandable downgrade (I don't think Rosen could have been deemed an automatic upgrade). The downgrade an interior OL was caused by factors beyond the team's control. Loss of depth at tackle due to trading Glenn was a reasonable move: he was a question mark due to health concerns and trading him allowed the team to make needed moves elsewhere. Other than that it was significant upgrades on defense and more-or-less status quo on offense. True, the offense will likely take a step back or at best remain at the same level no matter what Daboll does; but given the possible outcomes, this one is pretty good IMO.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Given the amount of concern people express about the likely starting line-up, I think you can be confident there is no shortage of people being concerned about the bench.
-
3
-
-
Let's say the Bengals/Ravens game went exactly as it did, but was played in week five. It would have had precisely the same effect on our getting into the playoffs, but many people would have believed our path to the playoffs was somehow more legitimate. When it comes down to the last teams vying for the final wildcard spot, the ultimate winner is always decided by numerous plays in numerous games throughout the year that they had no control over. The fact that one of those crucial plays takes place near the end of the last game of the season for one of the teams, certainly adds drama. But it doesn't make the team that gets in any more or less deserving, IMO.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:
Don't you mean this??
If it weren't for the camel toe, I'd swear this was the Peter Pan guy's day job.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, cba fan said:
I like the EU way of handling this "when is news old enough to purge". Thanks for that info..
question though:
So just providing the link and only commenting on the link, this somehow reduces your exposure and responsibility?
What if you provide the link and also quote the link. Are you now responsible?
Directly quoting the link would make you responsible as a republisher of whatever portion you quoted. Once you say it, you are responsible. So, if you accused Matt Patricia of being a predator, I couldn't protect myself by saying "cba fan says that Matt Patricia is a predator." I wouldn't be shielded by the fact that I accurately reported what you said -- I'd be responsible for the accuracy of what I repeated. The adage is "tale bearers are as bad as tale makers." Suggesting someone check out a link doesn't fall into that category.
If I vouch for the content of the linked material that's a different story. So, if I link to your accusation and introduce it by saying, "cba fan has finally exposed Matt Patricia, follow this link to find out the truth about the Lions' new coach," I'd be on the hook.
-
4 hours ago, Mickey said:
It makes sense that they would research this stuff after he was hired, it would make no sense to commit that level and resources to check the background of someone the Lions might hire. Moreover, we have no idea when they first came across whatever information they had that triggered their research. As interested as I am in the finer points of journalistic practices I am quite a bit more concerned that a grand jury in Texas found sufficient evidence that Patricia, now a head coach of an NFL franchise, sexually assaulted a woman. Blaming the paper for writing a story seems to miss the point. The information was out there and was bound to come out sooner or later. Newspapers are not in the business of covering up sexual assault charges against prominent persons. Their only obligation is to try and get the fact right. Has Patricia denied the facts of the story? On a side note, by posting the link to the story here, you have actually engaged in what legally is an act of publication yourself.
I disagree. In addition to trying to get the facts right, newspapers also have to consider whether what they are publishing is newsworthy. Here, it is reasonable to question that since the story is old news that was fully reported at the time it occurred and that has not suddenly become newsworthy again. Interestingly, the EU recognizes a "right to be forgotten," which essentially holds that at some point citizens have a right not to have old indiscretions (or alleged indiscretions) republished. This enables people to move on with their lives, and EU law requires Google to take down URLs after a valid delisting request is made. I see no valid reason for this story to have been reported again now, and agree with the OP.
As for the OP being a publisher, the law is well settled that publishing a hyperlink to content does not make you a republisher of that content and you cannot be held legally liable for the accuracy of the content linked to. It's treated as a suggestion to check out information published elsewhere. So, legally speaking, me providing you a link to an article published on the Sports Illustrated website is treated more or less like me telling you that there is an interesting article you should check out on the Sports Illustrated web site. I'm not treated as a publisher.
-
2 hours ago, bmur66 said:
So we need to send Josh to a gunsmith?
To his credit, he went to two on his own: Jordan Palmer and Kirk Cousins.
-
1 hour ago, BuffaloRush said:
Terrible. You want to compare Russ with those other guys? The difference is, not one person has come out with an allegation against Russ. Also you are jumping to the conclusion that it’s some kind of sexual harassment. Workplace misconduct can be a lot of things. It’s wrong to make those claims.
As you drink from your Bills pint glass tonight, have a few extras on Russ Brandon. Because he kept the team in Buffao
What I said is based on the following as reported in the Buffalo News and the Democrat and Chronicle: "his resignation is tied to an internal investigation into Brandon's workplace behavior and allegations of personal misconduct having to do with allegations of inappropriate relationships with female employees at PSE." I noted that this is "alleged" misconduct. My post responds to the OP's suggestion that Brandon perhaps should not be slammed due to his role "saving" the Bills: he is currently being slammed for his alleged misconduct not for his general performance of his duties within the organization. He can be both "slammed" and appreciated based on those different aspects of conduct attributed to him.
-
Apples and oranges. Harvey Weinstein was a highly-successful film producer. Matt Lauer did great things for NBC's bottom line. Charlie Rose was a widely-lauded interviewer. Neither they nor Brandon have been accused of being bad at getting the core aspects of their jobs done well. It was the [alleged] abusing of other human beings that people had a problem with.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Dude, I said I sit corrected and conceded your point. Do you need a concession speech or ?
Nope, just being clear.
-
1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Valid point, I'm sure Russ had a contract. I sit corrected. Counter point: contract very likely had a bunch of "outs" in it for morals, conduct detrimental, etc etc which put a lot of the "at will" back in, even where that isn't the correct legal descriptive
I'm sure there are defined "outs" in the contract (and some probably cover the conduct alleged here), but specified contractual terms defining the circumstances under which the employee may be fired is the exact opposite of at will.
-
25 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
People get all kind of stuff all mixed. If the man were a media figure being deep-6'd by accusations in the media, with no legal process, you might have a point.
The man is an employee, employment at will. His employer conducted an internal investigation and terminated him as a result of its findings. Employers get to do that. It's their right as businesses to choose whom they will employ and define the conditions of employment, within very broad legal guidelines.
I, you, and your little dog too have no right and no business with the details - no right to know how the investigation, no right to hear/see the evidence, and if Brandon is smart he'll keep his mouth shut and not tell his side, either. This is not an issue of "Social Justice Warriors and those afraid to confront them". This is long standing business practice and business employment law. If I had (avert) ever been investigated by an employer and asked to resign or terminated, it could be an egregious violation of my privacy and rights for the employer to release details.
What is the source for the assertion that he is an at-will employee? I find it very surprising that the person serving as the head of both an NFL and an NHL franchise would agree to that. Normally, the terms of employment for a position like that would be the result of a negotiated employment contract with attorneys on both sides, and the result would not be at will.
-
5 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:
So do you think the Pegula Jet is being used like Conair right now with O.J. In a cage and Incognito in a straight jacket?
That was my original thought, but the plane apparently was not redirected to Vegas.
-
39 minutes ago, jamiezzz said:
Could it be a player going for a physical in possible package for trade?
Incognito in a straight jacket for a quick hand off?
-
51 minutes ago, Jammer8732 said:
Didn’t see this one somehow. 2 concussions in a season isn’t good at any position. Not sure why this hasn’t got much play. I see early retirement in his future.
48 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:It has.
Hmmm? Jammer, have you been wearing your helmet? How many fingers am I holding up?
-
Darnold. If it weren't for the durability issues, it would be Rosen.
-
2 hours ago, ALF said:
Richie was great his last 3 seasons , even did his best to learn a complex blocking scheme last season. So they rewarded that effort with a pay cut . That was a real insult.
He negotiated and agreed to the pay cut. If he found it insulting he could have simply turned the Bills down. That they offered him a deal he now wishes he hadn't accepted is hardly bad conduct by the Bills.
-
24 minutes ago, Jobot said:
I wrote an example up further, but would someone be legally be allowed to not hire a gun owner if he didn't believe in the second amendment?
The Second Amendment limits the actions federal, state, and local governments can take to restrict gun ownership. Private employers are not government entities and as a result there is no "state action," and the Second Amendment does not limit their actions. For the same reason, I could exclude gun owners from my home and kick people out of my home if I don't like their speech. There are specific state and federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, sex, age, and other grounds. I am unaware of any state or federal anti-discrimination laws that seek to protect gun owners from discrimination by employers. So yes, a private employer would legally be allowed not to hire someone based on the fact that they are a gun owner.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:
Right this entire thread is polarizing which is why we are all entitled to our opinions. I will stand by mine - in 2018 Doug Whaley is a more devisive figure than Doug Whaley
So, "Most Polarizing Figures in Buffalo Bills History" means most polarizing right now, in 2018?
-
1 hour ago, Sky Diver said:
Alabama’s graduation rate for football players is about 84%.
True, but I don't think Rosen's comments on the difficulty of college football combined with serious academics was focused specifically on Alabama. He did mention their SAT requirements, but his comments were not generally focused directly on Alabama. And, in fairness, most of top football schools find ways to get their players through by finding ways to soften their academic demands.
Julio Jones Trade possibilty?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Strikes me as more of a Whaley move; definitely not a Beane move. And even Whaley would have needed to believe he had his QB in place (as he did with EJ) before spending that kind of money.