BuffaloBob

Well, had you said this after my first post, we wouldn't still be carrying on this silly discourse. After all, that was the point of my first post.

No, just logical. You ORIGINALLY quoted your wife as saying that when they struggled not a Sox fan out of state could be found. I stated that I have been a Sox fan for the past 36 years and was out of state when they struggled. That by pure logic alone necessitates the conclusion that her position is overstated. I am a Sox fan, I could be found, and I was out of state, all when they struggled. Then you come back and say that you have to agree with her. But in order to agree with her ORIGINAL statement, you MUST be assuming that I am lying, because I just told you I am the very example of someone that she claims could not be found. But NOW, you are saying that you agree with her that "you never saw so many Red Sox fans outside of MA as you do now." That is a different statement then the original one. So now, you seem to be agreeing with me, that her original position was overstated because you have softened it from "when they struggled you couldn't find a Sox fan anywhere out of state" to "there are a lot more out of state fans now than there were then they struggled." Do you see how I have a FREAKIN problem comprehending? You state one thing, and now another. That makes logical conversation a little difficult. Does it make me narrow minded that you said one thing, but actually meant another?

Well, then if you agree with her assessment that not a Sox fan could be found outside of Mass, then you are calling me liar. If you agree with her that her statement is true, then you are saying I am not a Sox fan for the last 37 years or that I lived in Mass at the time she is talking about. Either way, you are calling me a liar.

OK, so you're saying that even though I was out of state, am a huge Sox fan for 36 years, that she is still right? Couldn't find a Sox fan out of state anywhere? I guess that means either I was hiding under rock or I am lying about my affiliation. SO which is it?

Actually, I've been an avid Sox fan since 1968 and except for when I went to school at BU in 76-80, I haven't lived in Mass. So I think that theory is a bit over-stated!

There was nothing in the forensic eveidence that did not support their case. Her blood was on Kobe's shirt, his DNA was found all over her. The only thing that the DNA testing also demonstrated was the presence of Mr. X. And while their expert was able to support a theory that not all of Mr. X's material present in the tests could have been from a prior contact (i.e. the dirty yellow panties), that theory was shown for its weaknesses on cross. Moreover, as I've said before, even if she had contact with Mr. X after Kobe, it doesn't prove a damn thing. As I've said, I have known women first-hand who were raped by men they knew and totally went off the deep end. All it does is muddy the water. Sure, you can argue that she went on her merry way and had sex with someone else, or it may be that she was in shock and denial, sought comfort from Mr. X and they ended up having sex. That doesn't prove Kobe didn't do it! I read the transcripts of the prelim hearing. It wasn't that the evidence was weak, it was presented weakly. As is normally the case, these podunk counties are "witless for the prosecution" especially when compared to their highly paid adversaries. They presented their entire case based on the testimony of the detective. No nurses, no technicians. And they had no idea that they were gong to hit with this three guys in three days crap, which was never proven either. That is the problem with rape cases generally. It's he said-she said because there are no witnesses and the ONLY evidence that you have is that yes there was sexual contact. Rarely, especially in these date-rape kind of scenarios are there such traumatic injuries that the injuries alone leave one convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the sex was not consensual. Morever, because dates (and I realize this is not a classical date situation but it is quite analagous) there is some amount of consensual activity leading up to the point of departure. it always makes the girl look suspect. Why were you in his room? Why did you consent to kissing him? Why were you flirty with him? Because that's how many women view a first date. That is what happened to my ex-wife. She snuck out to see this assclown at age 16, he was like 19 or 20. She was thrilled that this guy was paying attention to her. She consented to making out. When he went for the goodies, she tried to resist him but he overpowered her. He was not going to get turned on like that and then be told to stop. What is creepy for me is that she told me he said similar menacing thiings to her like this girl alleges Kobe said to her about not telling anyone. My ex-wife went off the deep end. From a sweet prefect kid to a risk-taking OOC maniac. Then, when her parents got her a psychiatrist because they didn't know what else to do, this assclown tried to have sex with her too! Look, I am well-familiar with how the criminal justice system works. And I agree that given the fragile nature of any rape allegation and the typical dearth of evidence to begin with, that the presence of Mr. X, however he got there, really weakened the case. But I believe that there was a point where she tried to say no and he pushed it beyond that point. For all of the fears that men seem to get whenever they see a case like this, it sure doesn't happen very often. I'm sure that for every girl who claims a rape that didn't occur, there are probably 100 of them that go unreported that did. The deck is stacked against them from the beginning, and anything they do to screw it up will bring it tumbling down on top of them. Yeah, I think he did it and I think he was lucky he got her for his victim. I hope he learns one very expensive and scary lesson from it.

Well, as far as the legal system is concerned, he is. And so is OJ LOL! And feel free to delve deeper if you like, I'd like to see some of YOUR bias now.

Umm John, thanks for the advice, but I HAVE read more than the headlines. I've just seen fit to blow off most of the orchestrated smear campaign the defense has put out. But if you would like to cite specific examples of where my FACTS are incorrect, by all means do so. I suspect that all you will be able to do is to cite examples where peoples' opinions and hearsyay are being thrown around derived from reliable sources to remain anonymous.

Dude, I did not think you were a woman hater, but this sentiment you are expressing is part of the problem many people have who do not understand rape. Rape is about power NOT sex. Men do not rape women because they are so horny or because they think some woman is soooo beautiful. They do it because they have the need to control. As for Kobe not having a history of this, it may only be because no one has ever pressed charges before. She may have had a history of promiscuity (and btw, one man's promiscuity is another's having a good time) and mental instability, but did she have a history of crying wolf when it came to rape? First, you have no idea how easy it is to find "experts" who are willing to testify to something in THEIR OPINION when the money is right. They would have been cross-examined and would have been exposed as experts whose conclusions bought and paid for, and while possibly supportable, were not the likely conclusion most would have drawn from that evidnece. Moreover, except for what was being leaked from an obviously Mickey Mouse court, you don't know what the evidence REALLY is. Now here is the kicker. If she pulled on a pair of soiled panties, why do you think it would be so unusual for them to find the other guy's DNA on her thigh or anyhwere else where the panties had come in contact with her body? That's why it is so easy to contaminate crime scenes and samples. All it takes is contact with a soiled garment to produce the presence of DNA from that garment because the tests are so sensitive. Moreover, they were NOT the same panties she wore the night of the alleged rape. They were put on before she went in have the rape kit done. And besides, if two samples of the same kind of fluid soak panties, I find it highly unlikely they are going to layer over one another like sediment in a river bank. You think they can take a molecular cross-section of the panty and somehow do a profile of the deposits? Dude, they only scrape the skin and clothing worn the night of the rape and look for the presence of DNA, blood and semen if the kit is done soon enough. As for tearing the vagina during consensual sex to cause profuse enough bleeding for it to soak the bottom of his shirt, could I formulate some story to support a theory? Sure. I guess Kobi is hung like a horse and she liked it rough! LOL! As for behavior after rape, as I mentioned, there is no normal way of acting. Usually women go into shock, and their behavior can be widely different. I don't think their case fell apart, because I think the evidence was there. But through some unfortunate circumstances, the defense gained some opportunity to muddy it and they were able to get in her sexual past and emotional instability as well. Like I said, all you need is one juror who doesn't want to convict from the get go and you've given them reasonable doubt to get to where they want to be in the first place. To say that this woman was out for nothing but pecuniary gain just because she dropped what probably would have been a losing battle to get justice the only way she still had available is nothing more than an opinion.

Just because women have had some promiscuity or experimentation in their lives does NOT mean that it's ok to rape them, or that it now serves them right for having had sex with more than one man in their past. But the reality is, guys who rape them instead of raping women with more polley purebread pasts have a much beter chance of getting away with it. As far as choosing her goes, I said I thought he lucked out, although it is certainly possible that men who like to take what they want have an instinct for these things. As for her continuing with the civil and not the criminal trial. sorry but there are MANY reasons for that to happen that do not even come close to proving that she is only in it for the money. First, she could have been dragged through the coals for no reason, because all it takes is one idiot on the jury who is a Laker fan or impresssd with him to hang the jury. Second, it is very possible that they will be able to exclude her sexual past from the civil case, which they were not successful in doing in the criminal trial. Even more importantly, there is always the possibility of a settlement before a civil trial sparing her any trauma at all, whereas Kobi was not going to plead down on this case, if for no other reason than because I don't think the prosecution even offered him one. Actually, I don't know if I believe that anyway. Maybe she asked for it right away, and he lied and said she asked for it with that goodbye kiss going out the door. He basically lied outright in the beginning until they told him they had his goodies. Then they have to basically pressure his story out of him, which is full of inconsistencies. Sounded like utter BS to me. Oh, yes she said no and I stopped right away, but that was after I was already banging her. Yeah right! One thing they do know, it was her blood all over his shirt. I'm sure he was surprised to find that out. I ain't no Wilt Chamberlain but I have had my share of consensual women partners and while I am above average in the size department for a white boy, I have NEVER caused a woman to bleed from tearing her vagina. And you do not know what a forensic scientist was ready to testify to in his/her OPINION because the trial never went down. But there is NO OTHER WAY to make that determination (did someone have sex with someone) but based on physical evidence they found on her (which came from the panties). You think he can put her in the stirrups and yell HELLO and if there's an echo that tells him whether there she had sex in the last 12 hours? Defense: Was there another guy's DNA there? Yes. Was there another guy's hair there? Yes. And in your opinion that means she had sex after Kobi? Yes Sir! Nothing further your honor. And on cross-examinination it goes something like this: Any way to tell if the other guy was before or after Kobi? Well not really but in....THANK YOU! Is it possible that this DNA and hair could have come from dirty panties inadvertently put on that were worn previously after sex? Well, ummmm it is possible but in ... THANK-YOU! I have nothing further for this witness. And no where has there ever been a statement that she was screaming bloody murder. She was crying supposedely but if you think women scream bloody murder when they are being raped, you don't know much about it. They are typically too terrified. She was bruised on her jaw where he grabbed her from behind. Do you think that a woman who suddenly finds herself in that position being held from behind like that is screaming bloody murder? And finally, there is no such thing as a normal rape victim! I shared a story about my ex-wife, mainly because no one on this board knows me or her. She hardly acted like a "normal" rape victim. Her parents do not to this day know what made her go off the deep end like she did, let alone the authorities. I also had a girlfriend who was raped by a guy in her dorm at school in Laredo. Went unreported because she did not want to deal with the trauma, the questions. The guy stalked her all over campus and she had to leave school. You can believe what you want. I for one believe he is guilty even more now after reading that police transcript. Yeah, she wanted to so that's why I held her until I bruised her jaw. Yeah, she wanted to and that's why I tore up her vagina until she bled all over me (damn, can't pin that on the other dude, can he?). Oh yeah, and she did say no, after I'd been banging her for about 5 minutes so I calmly withdrew and she kiseed me goodnight. What a bunch of crap!

I completely disagree. If you want to know why, read my post above. You have bought into the defense attorneys' strategy. Make the girl look like a nut case, a whore and that she is really out for money. It's very interesting how all of these little defense theories got released to the public accidentally. Just as plausible is that she just couldn't take the pressure and being dragged through the mud of her sexual psychological past by a very well-paid defense team. Just because she decided to drop the criminal trial for the civil trial does not mean that was her plan all along, although that is what Kobi and his defense team want you to think. I think it came to a point where she felt that was the only way she was going to get justice. I think Kobi was lucky (or perhaps smart) in choosing his victim.

You know, it is just a gut feel, but my sense is and always has been that she was very impressed, she flirted, he got her to show her tatoos, he went for it, she let him go so far and then when she wouldn't go any further, he made it go further anyway. My sense is that she crid and resisted, and he thought better of it and then "pulled out" as he claims, or he simply finsihed and was lying about him pulling out after she said no.. I mean when the hell has any woman decided AFTER about 5 minutes of penetration that she really wants to say no afterall? And when she tried to get his autograph anyway, he told her get lost because he was uncomfortable or PO'd or both. I think he caught a lucky break that this girl was a 19 year-old with a somewhat troubled past. BTW, one of the big supposed pieces of evidence that was conveniently leaked from chambers to the public was this evidence that she had sex with someone else before going to have the rape kit done. Apparently, according to the prosecution she put on panties from a duffle bag that she had worn on a weekend get-away with her boyfriend that she hadn't unpacked before going to the hospital without thinking about the ramifications. Even if this were not true, it doesn't mean that Kobe did not force himself on her. She may have waffled about whether to go to the police, and rather than explain it to a boyfreind in the meantime who wanted to have sex, she just did it. In any event, no one will really know for sure. But I think he forced himself on her. It happens a lot more than people think. I have know several women, includin my ex-wife, who were date raped by men they knew, and never did anyting about it. My ex-wife went looney-tunes for a while after it happened (she was 16) to the point where her parents had her seeing psychiatrists. So what did she do? Even though she was severly traumatized by the expeprieince to the point of turning from a good kid to a risk-taking maniac, she actually became this guy's girlfriend for a while! This sort of thing can affect women in very weird ways.

Ahh, so YOU DO have clinical proof that Giambi's ailments are causally related to using steroids. You wouldn't have a link to that scientific study, would you? And of course, virtually every idiot who was taking what Balco was selling is also suffering from the same or very similar ailments. But of course, that will be well-cited in the study! Oh, and BTW, have you seen any documents or hear any testimony that proves Giambi was using?

Well, in a sense Drew's was an extension that also conceded some money. I am not at all opposed to Eric taking a pay cut while he's at it LOL! The only think that makes that tough is that Moulds accepted a contract that was under market at the time. I haven't done much research lately as to what top WRs are making nor have I attempted to see how I would rank Eric within that group, but I suspect that the money he is scheduled to earn is probably not that much more than he would expect to get elsewhere.

And I suppose you have clinical proof that this parasite that he and at least one other teammate had is directly related to steriod use, let alone the tumor of the pituitary. And of course, you have proof that he actually used steriods too I'll bet.

Well Bill, I'm sure Clump has probably done this already, but his salaries for the remaining years of his contract are 2004 4245000; 2005 5500000; 2006 6089000. I'm not sure if there are any escalators or roster bonuses included. I HOPE NOT! According to Clumpy, Eric's cap number for 2005 is $8.5 Million. Based strictly on salary and signing bonus as published ($12.5 Million), it would be $7.6 Million. However, there may be workout/roster bonuses etc. that Clumpy knows about through his arduous research. In any event, the Bills could save at the very least about $1.5 Million in cap space next season (and over $6 Million in 2006) if he is traded before June 1. If after June 1, the bonus amortization is eaten over two seasons and the 2005 savings becomes $4.4 Million in 2004 and about $4 Million in 2006. I suspect that there will be an extension done next season that will make him a Bill for another couple 2-3 years beyond 2006 that will reduce his cap impact for 2005, 2006.

With regard to the Mike Williams info, it appears that Clumpy was actually discussing only 2005 in the cited thread, so no errors on his part. Anyway, that does not change my analysis for 2005, which would cost the Bills $2.6 Million in cap space to cut him before the roster bonus is due.

Not only that, but it is now apparent based on some recent articles that he had his hand stepped on early in the game and he thinks it contributed to the fumble. He also thinks the guy who stepped on his hand did it deliberately. Boy, if that's the case, I'd sure love to be able to confirm it by game film and get him back somehow. Unfortunately, we don't get to play against the assclown again.

Far be it from me to question Clumpy's info. He does a great job of gathering info. However, I would like to point out first that Mike's 2004 salary is $486,250 and his 2005 salary is the $726,875 (that is, unless the NFLPA site and Bills Daily are both incorrect). Secondly, I would assume that these escalators are not "likely to be earned," or they would already be counting against the cap. That says to me, without more info, that if his salary does escalate, then he arguably deserves the money for his play. As for the roster bonus, Clumpy doesn't say when that is due. If it is due at the beginning of next season, that does become a factor. However, the question then becomes what is the impact on the cap in cutting him before the roster bonus becomes due? His two-part signing bonus amortizes at the rate of $2.1 million per year. If he is released prior to paying him his roster bonus (assuming that it is due like Feb or March of next year), you save the roster bonus plus his salary which equals $3,726,875. However, because there would be three years remaining on his contract, the cap gets hit with his unamortized bonus of $6.3 Million. That means that cutting him to save the salary and roster bonus will actually COST us almost $2.6 Million in cap space for 2005! With the cap as tight as it is, I hardly think the Bills will give up a player AND lose $2.6 Million in cap space to do it. Now, if the salary escalators are set up to be real easy to earn, that makes things a bit more interesting, although I would think that is unlikely because they would have to be already counted against the cap as if it were guaranteed signing bonus if the incentives are too easy. The reality is, the way these rookie contracts are done, it is very difficult to shed yourself of them for at least 2/3 of the years if not longer. When you guarantee a guy almost $12 Million up front, releasing him before most of the contract has run is cap costly. While I agree that Mike needs to get his act together, and while I also agree that he might be asked to take a pay cut if he doesn't, the Bills do not have much in the way of leverage to force him to do so without really gumming up what will already be a really tight cap for next season.

I would lke to think after what he's been through, that fans in all MLB cities would have given him a warm welcome back. I am a BoSox fan all the way, and I do have a hatred for the Yanks much like I do for the Phins, but that doesn't mean I do not respect the players or the organization and it certainly doesn't keep me from wishing well a fellow human being who has been through hell!

I hope Travis does't test positive for Midol in his next pee in a cup test!

I remember seeing them open for the Romantics in a small bar in Orlando back in the early 80's. Damn, those guys are cashing in way too young. I guess they had a really tough life and the mileage was hard on them.

Well, if you listen to the Coy Wire critics on this board, Gannon shouldn't be able to confuse Wire because he never gets around to looking at the QB anyway!

This is such BULLSHI-T. Trey Teague is not making anywhere near unbelievable money. The deal he signed pays him an average of $2.5 Million per year over 4 years. That is mousenuts for an O-lineman with his experience these days. Villarial is making nearly $3 Million per! Moreover, he signed for a very small amount of guaranteed money (only $1.6 Million) so he has been a very easy player to cut had we wanted to. He has been the most consistent lineman on the team for since at least halfway through last season if not longer. He has played every freakin' snap so far this year since the start of rookie camp, the only starting lineman to do so. He made the switch from the glamorous LT position with the potential to make a lot more money to center, with barely a complaint, and he has busted his ass learning to play the position. The only thing he lacks is the customary bulk that most centers have, although he is hardly small. Trey Teague deserves every nickel he is being paid. This is even more ridiculous. Willis will make a salary of $529,000 next year. This dictates nothing! Keyrist! Even our fullback makes more than that THIS year! Moreover, the bulk of Willis' contract has already been paid in the form of signing and roster bonuses. It hardly makes sense to dump him next season if he is not starting with that kind of investment in him already (let alone the impact it would have on the cap given that we would be eating all of that unamortized bonus). In fact, getting rid of McGahee next season, whether by trade or otherwise, is simply not going to happen! And BTW, the same reasoning goes for Mike Williams, who is scheduled to earn a salary of $486,250 this season, and $726,875 next season. because the bonus money has already been paid, the issue is only whether he is playing well enough to earn his salary at this point. The bonus money is gone and paid for and wil also come crashing onto the cap like a ton-o-bricks if he is traded or cut. And BTW, I realize you are probably exaggerating Lindel's salary position for effect (i.e. top 5 money), but I can name 9 kickers right now (I got tired of looking after finding 9 rather easily) who are making more than Lindell this season and next season: Olindo Mare, Adam Vinatieri, Seb Janikowski, Joe Nedney, Jeff Wilkins, Doug Akers, Mike Vanderjagt, Kris Brown and John Hall. This was just a quick perusal of the salaries on NFLPA web site and looking up their signing bonuses and pro-rating them. I am as disappointed as anyone with Lindell's kicking thus far, but let's not be too dramatic. Of course, I am not saying that those other guys are not better or worth the extra money, I am only saying that Lindell is NOT in the top 10 of kicker compensation let alone top 5.

I believe they've got this bass ackwards!