Gugny Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 47 minutes ago, Chemical said: Why would they report that as a done deal though? That is what some people are still claiming happened. Being right seems very important to you. I don't know why anyone really gives a *****. This is yesterday's news and means absolutely nothing to the Buffalo Bills. And there is nothing (zilch, nada, nuttin') that says the trade was done. In fact, that doesn't even make sense to me. But again ... who really gives a *****? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Chemical said: Looks like he's back at practice. So we will see. The Steelers were pretty good while he was there. they were, but his antics this off season, against a team that brought him on to be a leader, are not doing him any favors. watch that video of when he was signed. he's already proven himself a liar and selfish beyond belief. the moment the guy has a dry spell, that city and team are going to turn on him. winning fixes everything, but it certainly doesn't seem like his priority is to winning or that team. Edited August 19, 2019 by teef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Chemical said: It's more likely that they weren't wrong. Why is that so hard for YOU to understand? Prove to me with concrete evidence that “most likely they weren’t wrong”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Gugny said: Being right seems very important to you. I don't know why anyone really gives a *****. This is yesterday's news and means absolutely nothing to the Buffalo Bills. And there is nothing (zilch, nada, nuttin') that says the trade was done. In fact, that doesn't even make sense to me. But again ... who really gives a *****? Why do YOU care? You took the time to respond to me. I'm not the one who cares. Why are you quoting me and not the people who are claiming the deal wasn't done. They posted THAT first. I'm simply correcting them, followed by a back and forth. If you really don't care it should be equally annoying to see either side's argument. It WAS reported the deal was done. It has never been refuted clearly. The Beane quote doesn't say there was no deal. 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Prove to me with concrete evidence that “most likely they weren’t wrong”. No, you prove to me "with concrete evidence" that they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Chemical said: Why do YOU care? You took the time to respond to me. I'm not the one who cares. Why are you quoting me and not the people who are claiming the deal wasn't done. They posted THAT first. I'm simply correcting them, followed by a back and forth. If you really don't care it should be equally annoying to see either side's argument. It WAS reported the deal was done. It has never been refuted clearly. The Beane quote doesn't say there was no deal. You seem very upset. Either that, or there's something wrong with your shift key. I see multiple arguments with one thing in common between all of them; they're with you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Just now, Gugny said: You seem very upset. Either that, or there's something wrong with your shift key. I see multiple arguments with one thing in common between all of them; they're with you. wrong. You obviously agree with them. That's ok, but I question your intelligence if that's the case. Royale and shady (who brought it up in the first place) on one side and c biscuit and me on the other. Yet you chose to quote me and say i'm upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Just now, Chemical said: wrong. You obviously agree with them. That's ok, but I question your intelligence if that's the case. Royale and shady (who brought it up in the first place) on one side and c biscuit and me on the other. Yet you chose to quote me and say i'm upset. Well you are clearly upset. Upset about something that happened nearly a half a year ago. That worries me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Just now, Gugny said: Well you are clearly upset. Upset about something that happened nearly a half a year ago. That worries me. Don't worry. I'm not upset. Maybe focus on yourself or someone else that's arguing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Chemical said: No, you prove to me "with concrete evidence" that they were wrong. My gawd dude. You cannot keep with a conversation at all. My entire point, which I clearly stated is that it's all SPECULATION. None of us know for sure. It may or may not be true. You're the one stating that without a doubt that the report was true. That means the burden of proof is on you. How in the hell is this so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Chemical said: Don't worry. I'm not upset. Maybe focus on yourself or someone else that's arguing with me. You should seriously consider speaking to a mod about EAP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Just now, Royale with Cheese said: My gawd dude. You cannot keep with a conversation at all. My entire point, which I clearly stated is that it's all SPECULATION. None of us know for sure. It may or may not be true. You're the one stating that without a doubt that the report was true. That means the burden of proof is on you. How in the hell is this so hard to understand? The burden of proof isn't on me. That's my point. Shady stated it as a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Chemical said: wrong. You obviously agree with them. That's ok, but I question your intelligence if that's the case. Royale and shady (who brought it up in the first place) on one side and c biscuit and me on the other. Yet you chose to quote me and say i'm upset. 1 minute ago, Chemical said: The burden of proof isn't on me. That's my point. Shady stated it as a fact. wow.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 19 minutes ago, Formerly Allan in MD said: It's not really the helmet that the problem; it's what's in it. What goes in the Helmet for $1,000 Alex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 The Bills were interested, inquired, but didn't want to pay Brown what he was demanding, so they backed away. The Raiders offered what he wanted so he went there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: Not sure that this proves anything different than what I said? The Bills wanted AB. They tried to swing a deal and it didn’t work out. Brown isn’t in Oakland because the Bills didn’t want him. The Bills may be real lucky that a deal didn’t come to fruition but your original claim @ShadyBillsFan that the Bills had “zero contact to bring him to our beloved team” isn’t true. Agreed, but it is also true that no deal was done - even though one (1) reporter/internet media member stated it was. Once it was reported as a done deal - several other Bills reporters immediately started to deny the trade was done and then it comes out that they (Buffalo and Pittsburgh) talked, but nothing was finalized. I think Beane would have made the deal for AB on his original deal and maybe a small amount of extra guarantee, but he was not giving up multiple picks and a huge deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Just because people disagree there is no need to call them ignorant and or question your intelligence I now have a new member of the Ignore club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc said: The Bills were interested, inquired, but didn't want to pay Brown what he was demanding, so they backed away. The Raiders offered what he wanted so he went there. Take your logic elsewhere. There's clearly no room for it in this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, Doc said: The Bills were interested, inquired, but didn't want to pay Brown what he was demanding, so they backed away. The Raiders offered what he wanted so he went there. Right because the Bills didn't really have the cap space this year or next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 Quote minutes ago, Chemical said: The burden of proof isn't on me. That's my point. Shady stated it as a fact. And I corrected the BLUNDER in my edit and fixed my mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted August 19, 2019 Share Posted August 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Doc said: The Bills were interested, inquired, but didn't want to pay Brown what he was demanding, so they backed away. The Raiders offered what he wanted so he went there. ^This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts