DaggersEOD
-
Posts
601 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DaggersEOD
-
-
1 minute ago, Putin said:
For crying out loud is the vaccine 100 % safe Or is it like Lysol 99,9 % ??
-
5 hours ago, Boxcar said:
As of yet, they are NOT factual allegations.
These also weren't independent. We see it all the time where it starts with one and snowballs. Buzbee was actively looking for more women. Some experienced different things than others, and a small percentage likely experienced nothing at all.
I'll tell you though, the situation where the SI journalist reached out to a random masseuse and she had her own story very similar to the ones portrayed in the media did more to color my opinion than the (12, 14, 20, 22!) allegations.
-
38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I thought we were all supposed to respect everyone's personal opinions here? Now because it's mine, we don't?
There's a uuuuge difference between believing everyone should "get the Jab" (which is my personal opinion) and some of the positions you are imputing to me such as
No one has said the latter. I have not said the former. And it's a huge leap from my personal opinion that everyone should get the jab, to the above. Do not put words in my mouth.
Hit me in PM. PM me links to all the posts where I am reasonably interpreted as "deride"ing anyone, about anything. Stand and deliver. Go.
Otherwise don't write checks you can't cash, and don't put words in my mouth.
I won't respond further to this here as it's personal against me and not relevant to the topic under discussion - way too generalized. You're getting one free pass here but only one.
Wow deleting my legit and respectful opinion/response while keeping your personal attack up is very cool bro.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
This is a total straw man, as no one has said that. Nor do I, personally, criticize Josh for saying he hasn't made up his mind yet or that he maybe hasn't followed it as much as he should.
Discussion of the actual EUA process (which involves full clinical trials and safety review) is beyond the scope of discussing Josh's interview so I won't go there.
Anyone reading your posts in this thread can easily ID the position you've staked out in this conversation. You think it's foolish not to "get the jab".
Can you show me a post where you urge caution because this is still an experimental vaccine with unknown long/medium term health effects? That it is just as reasonable to "wait and see" as it is to "get the jab" without understanding the health implications.
Because I can point to multiple posts where you deride anyone who holds that POV.
Just saying. Both sides of this debate can be respected, even if you disagree.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
I can and do respect plenty of opinions I don't agree with - they are based on facts, they just interpret those facts differently than I do. If Josh said "I realize that in the past 200 years, mandatory public health measures have been repeatedly supported by the Courts as Constitutional due to Amendment 10, but I feel that should change because I believe individual freedom should be paramount over concerns about the public good" I would vehemently disagree, but I would respect his opinion because it acknowledges factual history, it just comes from a different value system or viewpoint than mine.
You keep conflating safe vaccines with experimental vaccines as if they are equal. Never in those 200 years did anyone mandate an unproven vaccine whose long term effects on humans have not been determined. It takes YEARS for a vaccine to be vetted. Not 9 months.
Saying that proven and vetted vaccines are good/safe so therefore ALL vaccines are good/safe is like saying "I didn't assault these massage therapists, so therefore I didn't assault ANY therapists".
1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:As they should be.
Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are not based on facts and should be treated as such (not talking about this specific conversation, just in general)
Unfortunately, it seems these days both sides have their "facts" and they use them to shut down any constructive debate.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, H2o said:
Hence why I said he had to tip-toe around his answer in a previous post. Whatever he said, he said. That's his opinion. Respect that it's his opinion. I didn't say that you have to agree with his opinion. That's the difference. Because his opinion differs from some who see his opinion as "craptastic", while their opinion they see as more "glitter and rainbows", is exactly what I am talking about with the day and age we live in. I am not going to attack you for advocating for him to "Get the jab, Josh." I am not going to attack you or anyone else who are advocating for it in general. The problem lies wherein people don't respect his reasoning and try to force theirs upon him, all while trying to explain that their stance is right while his is wrong. The horde coming after him because he's not in line for or advocating for the "the jab" so to speak. That's what I find ignorant. That is all. If you want to continue this conversation then PM's are good as I know you don't want the board to get cluttered with such things. If not, I am done with what I felt I needed to say my friend.
Completely agree with all here. Some opinions are treated differently than others.
-
1
-
-
Yeah but is he going to get the vaccine?
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Sherlock Holmes said:
People: Athletes should shut their mouth because nobody cares what they think....
Same Exact People: Wait, you want to push our agenda? Carry on, everybody should listen to this athlete, they are such a great role model...
Most normal people: Yup. You’re both jerks.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:
The problem is, there shouldnt be "sides" about this.
The fact that there are sides categorizes it as a political issue and not a health issue.
Hence the explicit main board ban.
6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:I agree, he seems to do a good job both being sensitive to the experiences of his teammates (like when he said last summer that he'd never had the experience of being pulled over by police and fearing for his life and he thought that was horrible) but overall just trying to stay out of politics and social controversy.
But while I think his intent was to come across as neutral, he stepped into it a bit there when he started off on the "constitutional" stuff. If he'd stopped with "no I have not, and I need to do more research on it" that woulda been better - after all, he's not even eligible to be vaccinated in Cali until 15 April, so if he said he was vaxx'd that woulda been controversial too.
Constitution...controversial??
-
3
-
-
-
12 hours ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:
Plenty have for various reasons, but I never hurt or tortured defenseless animals like Vick did. To me there’s never any forgiveness when it comes to sexual assault or hurting animals.
I dunno man.
I tend to value women more than dogs.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Maybe. But a fundamental in our legal process is that we all have the right to face our accusers. And I get the media and their right to protect their sources. But all of these unnamed and anonymous sources we've experienced lately are approaching, and perhaps have crossed, a sense of fairness.
I guess my thought is that this point was going to have to come. I'm also glad we've got to this point and it is in no way because I want to see anyone dragged through the dirt. I want the truth to prevail.
I completely agree about the need to face your accuser(s). It’s one of the invaluable benefits of our system of laws and justice.
My comment is more along the lines of what was said, in the context of this case. Once they get a name, they’ll be able to aim a world class marketing machine at the individual to win in the court of public opinion.
Think about all the people and companies who have invested in the Watson persona. All the endorsements, the agent, the NFL, the Texans, friends of Watson ( in and out of the locker room), Social Justice/Community Investment outreach programs he supports, etc. all have a vested interest in the Watson brand surviving this situation.
And all they have to do it convince a certain percentage that the accuser is a less than stellar / upstanding / squeaky clean person.
The gleeful tone of the tweet just made my skin crawl is all. And again, this is why women usually don’t step forward.-
2
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:
Am I the only one who took this as, “Now that we know who she is, we can drag her name through the dirt”-
7
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:
Or those were the 18 who actually signed his NDA. Who the eff has an NDA for a massage.
Wait maybe he’s claiming those original 21 accusers are imposters and these are the REAL therapists. -
Oh man I love this team!
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:
oh, Ok then
Tough to prove a negative, but showing that Watson has utilized the services of ANOTHER 20 therapists doesn’t make his case sound better IMO.Such a strange defense strategy.
Yeah those women said I did something to them, but these over here said I didn’t with them, therefore those others must be lying?
-
3
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I wouldn't work for someone who wants to run prayer sessions with me. Now call me a heathen if you wish, but I'd be out.
Cool cool cool. Do you feel the same about the other side of the spectrum? Seems to be a lot more “woke” pushing than “religion” pushing these days.-
3
-
-
21 hours ago, wppete said:
These conspiracy theorists are embarrassing.... this would be one grand conspiracy involving at 24 women/accusers and im
Sure more to come, a whole gang of lawyers, a NFL owner, a NFL manager and others. Also a Female SI reporter..... Criminal charges to follow most likely. Pretty insane how many people are making every excuse possible for Watson who surely looks like a predator to any logical thinking person. The precedence this is setting should be Interesting to see when the next NFL player is accused.... The only losers here are the 24 victims.
And people wonder why most victims don’t say anything.-
2
-
1
-
-
On 3/26/2021 at 4:53 PM, Norcalbillsfan said:
I still feel like if the bills are going RB at 30 it's Etienne. He's everything the bills want speed and pass catching. Just my 2 cents is if the CB or edge they want isn't there at 30 then they look at Etienne cuz he instantly makes the offense better. If the CB or edge is there they take it in a heart beat then maybe take a speedy pass catching back later rounds or just rotate breida. Either way I think Breida is the insurance if they don't get the back they want.
Well he DID play college in Carolina...
-
I know most have a very negative opinion on investing in the RB position, but IMO, the running game is having a bit of a resurgence.
As D's get lighter and faster to stop the pass, they grow more susceptible to the run. I'm sure it's just me, but I think there is a lot more value in having a legit weapon at RB than some of the other positions discussed here.
For those who want to focus on D (legitimately), having a stud RB who can be relied on to keep drives going, will shorten the games and keep the D more fresh. As mentioned many times, our D was MUCH improved down the stretch, so with better ToP, the D could possibly improve significantly over last year and get back to 2019 form when we had a better ground game.
Additionally, I think RBs have much more impact on the O than TEs and WRs. On every play, the RB has an important role. Obviously a rushing play is their main contribution, but on pass plays, he's blocking, taking a play action fake to hold safeties/LBs, running a route or blocking for the QB. I contend that the RB is second only to the QB on % of plays with a critical role.
Looking at how the 2021 Bills are currently staffed, Bean has done a great job creating a solid roster from top to bottom. IMO there is no position that can significantly improve this team more than a game changing rookie RB.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
Biggest red flag for me though in this specific case is this: Lawyer's first statement insisted this "wasn't about money" but that was only AFTER he first offered Watson a 6 figure cash settlement that he turned down.
Its clearly 100% about money and not justice from the get go if you are going to allow the accused to just settle with a financial settlement and not even file the civil suits. So thats not a good look for the accusing lawyer IMO.
And this lawyer forcing this issue into the court of public opinion on social media is another red flag.
So while I agree with your point above about why some women will be intimidated to come out against a celebrity, there is a lot to be suspicious of in this exact case.
Again RAMPANT speculation, but it’s possible they approached him insisting he took responsibility for his actions.
He rebuffs them in a dismissive “WHO TF are you? You’re a nobody and I’m a somebody” “I can do whatever I want” “You can’t touch me” *insert arrogant ahole insult*
Victim won’t tolerate the disrespect, changes motive from compensation to justice.
Just an example off the top of my head and is not based on any facts or knowledge.
-
11 hours ago, Locomark said:
That’s hilarious !! Sure he doesn’t !! How many guys living in big butt mansions in exclusive areas don’t know each other !!
Honestly bro, the more money they have, the less interested they are in “getting to know” the neighbors.
They typically value their privacy and don’t go hang out with the neighbor down the street from my (very very very limited) experience.
-
3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
It's a puzzle, for sure. But it seems like athletes around the NFL who are young, relatively wealthy (even the rookie practice squad guys are making money in the 95th percentile for the US, straight out of college), and have the social "capital" of playing a professional sport, regularly get into trouble with sketchy encounters when it would seem probable to us that there would be women lining up to give them whatever they want, in an aboveboard and 100% consensual way.
I can only think that the ambiguity or risks of the situation must be part of the allure. Look at the "Cheesecake Factory #### ###" story about Baker Mayfield. Someone here who seems to have some inside info about Berea said something to the effect that it was considered "par for the course" with Mayfield's behaviors at the time and that his wife knew and was OK with it, IIRC.
That woman, taking her story at face value, was very clear about the consentuality of what happened - she knew beforehand what Mayfield wanted, she came there expecting to provide it, they chatted, then Mayfield explicitly asked "are we gonna do this or not?" giving her a chance to back out or go forward. Mayfield came out of that episode (again, taking it at face value) looking like a sleeze, but a consentual sleeze.
But Mayfield had clearly put himself in a situation (again, taking story at face value that it occurred) where the woman could have told a totally different version, made him look much worse, and hired a lawyer. Then if the "par for the course" part was correct, maybe a dozen other women woulda come out of the woodwork.
Why would a guy do that? I can only think either the risks of the situation must be part of what they want, or they're so focused on football that they have no clue as to other ways to proceed.
You asked why would they do that.
It's an expression of power. "Look what I can get/do/have"
To bring it down to our level, it's like speeding, knowing that you've got a cop buddy who can get you out of a ticket.
You just do it because it's cool you can do something others aren't allowed to.
What happened here (IF TRUE!!) is like going TOO fast and your cop buddy can't get you out of it. Then all the other things your buddy swept away for you come out and now you SOL.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Boxcar said:Sexual assault allegations have been weaponized. Your name is protected, it's nearly impossible (most of the time) to prove what actually happened, and there are zero consequences for lying. The upside is a lot of sympathy fame and money, which really hurts actual victims who want real justice. The allegations could be true, but throwing more logs on the fire doesn't make it any more or less credible to me.
Sadly, who you accuse is more important than what they did. If you accuse the “right” person, fame, glory, TV appearances.
Accuse the “wrong” person, it’s public shame, mocking, ridicule and you get to have your name dragged through the mud.
Seems like Watson is the “wrong” person to accuse.
Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
So at this point, Team Watson has admitted to:
- Using AT LEAST 40 different MTs (more on that)
- Shopping for MTs on IG
- Flying some in from out of state
- And now having consensual sex with some.
Let’s dig into that last one:
- We know 24(?) different MTs claim he made unwanted advances.
- He introduced another 20 who he didn’t make sexual advances towards (He was very professional they claim)
- Now admits to having consensual sex with yet ANOTHER pool of MTs (so not the ones he intro’d and not the ones suing)
His only contention at this time, is that he does make sexual advances towards his MTs but they all wanted it.
The frat boy / jock excuse is pretty lame.
I particularly love the part when his lawyer says (paraphrasing) “ He didn’t use his fame/stardom/money to influence or coerce them”.
Bro there’s No Way these ladies didn’t know who you are, and there’s no way you didn’t think who you were entitled you to do whatever it was you actually did.