Deranged Rhino Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Manning may need more than Nationwide on his side with respect to these allegations. "Allegations" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Manning may need more than Nationwide on his side with respect to these allegations. no, he won't they're 20 years old. we moved on. political agendas have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 "KING: RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD BETWEEN CAM NEWTON AND PEYTON MANNING" I'm out why are all white people good and blacks bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 So was her face, "by all accounts". Anyway, what, specifically, do you disagree with in his retelling of the events described in his document? What is he spinning about Manning and this woman? lets play a game. Since you are unable to play this game. I will play it for you. 1. Why is he bringing this up now? Political motivation. He has interests personally that this story can inflame and propagate. 2. Is it wrong to write about this story? Not necessarily, but the approach and the bias shown reveals disturbing portrayals of the authors viewpoints. 3. Does this have anything to do with Cam Newton? No. 4. Is earning shares and likes on Facebook now deemed a credible token in life and the story of it? WTF, I don't even. And stay off my lawn. 5. His constant self injection. "Now, I get a lot of crap posted on my Facebook page, but I decided, on a whim, to Google "Peyton Manning sexual assault University of Tennessee." Now, I get a lot of likes, and women to request to add me every day, but I decided on a whim to AskJeeves "Shaun King NY Daily News" F. Why did he seed his article with other OpEd's about race? Agenda: **** Stir. G. So, before he ever read the article what did he think of Peyton Manning? It would indicate he already saw a division likely based on race, as he eludes to and the PDF he received only fueled his ability to protest the alleged racial bias he sees. 9. The stating that the documents sent to him... this is his statement on court documents... This document says, in essence, that it's all a facade, an act, a well-designed for-profit creation, maintained and manicured at all cost. For me, it was like reading proof that the first Apollo moon landing was really a fictional tale filmed in a Hollywood studio designed to dupe us all. That flag, planted in the moon, seemingly blowing in the wind, was a ruse after all. Maybe B.o.B. was right on this one fact. This, is hands down, no doubt spin. It is sensationalism, too. To equate a court document sent to him as stating that Peyton Manning is a facade means to me that he has reading comprehension problems, is a dullard, did not read it or is trying to hype up what a court document is. They're boring as hell. Instead, what we are reading is his interpretation of what he saw in the court documents whilst he insinuates the court document is a story. 8. Him sourcing an article by the plaintiffs legal team means that every little bit of that action happened? Nope. That's just one side of the story. Even when he puts in the title of that article "The Facts Of The Case" does not mean they're actually facts. They're one persons truth, not the whole truth, not nothing but the truth, so help you Allah. 9. In the fall of 1994, Peyton Manning entered the University of Tennessee football program as the already-famous son of legendary college and pro football star Archie Manning. That semester, his first on campus, some type of incident involving Manning and Naughright occurred. By request of the counsel of Peyton Manning, the details of that incident have been sealed and three-and-a-half pages concerning it have been redacted from the permanent record (see pages 11-14). So, we are going to put out an op-ed without including the full information? Uh, ok. Maybe Manning and the woman dated? Maybe she sold him pottery in a Walmart parking lot to give to his mom on mothers day? Again, the entire source of Shaun King's article is a one sided piece. It's just ridiculous to go on working on this scathing piece of ****ty journalism. Either way, I'd go on, but instead, I'll just post this video which helps you understand who Faron Young is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 lets play a game. Since you are unable to play this game. I will play it for you. You're missing a very obvious point; the reasons behind him writing the article aren't the issue. If you have some reason to believe that what he wrote is not true, point it out. Who the hell cares WHY he wrote the article. If it's truth, that's all that matters. Whether he gets national attention for writing it is beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 You're missing a very obvious point; the reasons behind him writing the article aren't the issue. If you have some reason to believe that what he wrote is not true, point it out. Who the hell cares WHY he wrote the article. If it's truth, that's all that matters. Whether he gets national attention for writing it is beside the point. It's truth, in that it accurately summarizes the document he received. It's also a summary of a single filing by the plaintiff, which makes it highly slanted. "Truth" isn't all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It's truth, in that it accurately summarizes the document he received. It's also a summary of a single filing by the plaintiff, which makes it highly slanted. "Truth" isn't all that matters. I think there was a lot of information in the article that made it a relevant story. Specifically the lies that were refuted by so many, and the breaking of the confidentiality agreement for his book. I said earlier on that the article is clearly written with an agenda, but as far as I can tell (I skimmed the documents, but really don't care enough to read through the whole thing) he didn't alter the facts, or even embellish them, in order to make his point, which is far more than I expect from most journalists today. He isn't a lawyer in court here, he's just passing on details that he received about Manning's past. What more is needed here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QB Bills Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_King_(activist) YOLO, please, consider your source. this is an activist **** stirrer and the spin in this article is heavily tainted. it is unfortunate because by all accounts what occurred with Manning was not cool, at all. the fact that others, including this asshat, are using Newton's actions to spin their own yarn and bring up almost 20 years ago is pathetic. ya man, i totally agree that sexual assault is "not cool" he should have just went skateboarding...skateboarding is cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) You're missing a very obvious point; the reasons behind him writing the article aren't the issue. If you have some reason to believe that what he wrote is not true, point it out. Who the hell cares WHY he wrote the article. If it's truth, that's all that matters. Whether he gets national attention for writing it is beside the point. what he wrotes is not true. i pointed that out. he wrote an entire article flaming Manning based on the Plantiffs allegation and submission to the court. Nothing to do with the defense the legal team supplied. Nothing to do with any verdicts or findings. His entire piece was 1 side of a story pre-litigation. ya man, i totally agree that sexual assault is "not cool" he should have just went skateboarding...skateboarding is cool see above, sir. It's truth, in that it accurately summarizes the document he received. It's also a summary of a single filing by the plaintiff, which makes it highly slanted. "Truth" isn't all that matters. truth doesn't matter when you can hashtag it. #idiot. Edited February 13, 2016 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 what he wrotes is not true. i pointed that out. he wrote an entire article flaming Manning based on the Plantiffs allegation and submission to the court. Nothing to do with the defense the legal team supplied. Nothing to do with any verdicts or findings. His entire piece was 1 side of a story pre-litigation. see above, sir. None of that is untrue. Maybe incomplete, but the author never claimed to be writing a documentary on the court case, and frankly he's not responsible for such. He passed on the information he was given and gave his opinion about it. He even went as far as to point out his bias at the beginning of the article. Again, show me a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) None of that is untrue. Maybe incomplete, but the author never claimed to be writing a documentary on the court case, and frankly he's not responsible for such. He passed on the information he was given and gave his opinion about it. He even went as far as to point out his bias at the beginning of the article. Again, show me a lie. a lie with the article? that's easy. that he is called a journalist. he's a **** stirrer. and just like he, i can give my opinion on complete nonsense. i guess i am a journalist, too. not everyone can present a piece of literature and be a journalist. this is nothing more than hate speech. edit: In true journalist integrity, which is not currently something emplored by those in the business there would be a large disclaimer that his entire piece is all opinion of an opinion. true journalists do not just spout of opinion on opinion. i am sure John Wawrow would agree - but he doesn't do op-ed. the guise of op-ed can let anyone release anything. but this guy is not a journalist. Edited February 13, 2016 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 This sh!t happens every day to some extent. How many people get railroaded out of jobs for stupid reasons that have nothing to do with performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 a lie with the article? that's easy. that he is called a journalist. he's a **** stirrer. and just like he, i can give my opinion on complete nonsense. i guess i am a journalist, too. not everyone can present a piece of literature and be a journalist. this is nothing more than hate speech. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 what he wrotes is not true. i pointed that out. he wrote an entire article flaming Manning based on the Plantiffs allegation and submission to the court. Nothing to do with the defense the legal team supplied. Nothing to do with any verdicts or findings. His entire piece was 1 side of a story pre-litigation. see above, sir. truth doesn't matter when you can hashtag it. #idiot. Are you saying: The underlying incident never happened? PM's former teammate never testified the way he did? The ghost writer never testified the way he did? The woman never lost her job at the Florida college as described? P.S. I do not necessarily disagree that the reason this is coming out again now is that the writer has an agenda - but that does not mean that the underlying event did not happen as opposed to the reason why it is being brought up again now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I see absolutely nothing wrong with this article. Its an op-ed piece like a million other op-ed pieces that express personal opinions on a subject matter. Whether or not you think the guy has an agenda is irrelevant. Quite frankly you getting on your soap box and calling other people names because you think you somehow know he has an agenda while others do not is laughable at best. The fact that the article is skewed in one direction isnt a revolutionary discovery on your behalf. You're apparently the only true simpleton here to think such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 IMO, the most damning aspect of that article was the finding by the Polk County Circuit Judge in 2001, which found that her suit not only had merit, but that Manning and his dad lied about certain facts and KNEW they lied about those facts. Small wonder they agreed to settle. If Manning had simply adhered to the original non-disclosure agreement reached several years earlier none of this would be a topic for discussion today. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsmovinup Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It is very, very odd that this appears now especially since it appears he believes Cam got bashed too much after Superbowl. I'll let someone else put together story without his obvious slant. And here we have the hero worshiper. His/her hero's can do no wrong. The accusers story is always false no matter how damning the evidence. Let's see if good old Peyt sues the NY Daily News. Of course you'll have an excuse for that if it doesn't happen. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 IMO, the most damning aspect of that article was the finding by the Polk County Circuit Judge in 2001, which found that her suit not only had merit, but that Manning and his dad lied about certain facts and KNEW they lied about those facts. Small wonder they agreed to settle. If Manning had simply adhered to the original non-disclosure agreement reached several years earlier none of this would be a topic for discussion today. Idiot. The fact that he and his family ruined her career with lies is nothing short of despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsmovinup Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 IMO, the most damning aspect of that article was the finding by the Polk County Circuit Judge in 2001, which found that her suit not only had merit, but that Manning and his dad lied about certain facts and KNEW they lied about those facts. Small wonder they agreed to settle. If Manning had simply adhered to the original non-disclosure agreement reached several years earlier none of this would be a topic for discussion today. Idiot. Someone who gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 IMO, the most damning aspect of that article was the finding by the Polk County Circuit Judge in 2001, which found that her suit not only had merit, but that Manning and his dad lied about certain facts and KNEW they lied about those facts. Small wonder they agreed to settle. If Manning had simply adhered to the original non-disclosure agreement reached several years earlier none of this would be a topic for discussion today. Idiot. that is the interesting area of critique which is not broached enough. in the book it is not definitely clear to the point of being obvious to the public whom he is or was speaking of - it was only after investigation was done, etc that it drew connections. manning's and publisher should have had used better judgement. but i'm sure legal advice was sought and either not adhered to or was wrong. Are you saying:- The underlying incident never happened? PM's former teammate never testified the way he did? The ghost writer never testified the way he did? The woman never lost her job at the Florida college as described? P.S. I do not necessarily disagree that the reason this is coming out again now is that the writer has an agenda - but that does not mean that the underlying event did not happen as opposed to the reason why it is being brought up again now. uh, where did i oppose anything that happened? i opposed the article simply based on its poor form and authenticity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts