Bountygate

[RamFan503]

Re: Question for the board

Let's see if I can do this in under a thousand words.

I would agree that the term "bounty" would insinuate more than paying for good plays. But the reason the term was coined was because there is heightened outrage associated with it. The rule is against bonuses - period. The "bounties" have typically covered everything from interceptions to hard hits on the QB to 100 yard games by RBs. The reason they are referring to what GW did as "bounties" is because of the injury issue. And without that issue, the breaking of the "bonus rule" (if you will) means nothing to anyone outside of the NFL front office. And without the injury issue, the NFL is not going to do anything more than hit the coach's pocketbook and maybe suspend him for a game. It's HOW they broke the rule not THAT they broke the rule.

 

[-X-]

Re: Question for the board

and............. scene.

How exhausted is everyone that's reading and/or writing in this thread by now?

FFS. :neh:

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Question for the board

and............. scene.

How exhausted is everyone that's reading and/or writing in this thread by now?

FFS. :neh:

Yeah - I came back to edit by simply saying "I'm done" So.......drum roll..... I'm done. :tooth:

 

[DR RAM]

Re: Question for the board

Let's see if I can do this in under a thousand words.

I would agree that the term "bounty" would insinuate more than paying for good plays. But the reason the term was coined was because there is heightened outrage associated with it. The rule is against bonuses - period. The "bounties" have typically covered everything from interceptions to hard hits on the QB to 100 yard games by RBs. The reason they are referring to what GW did as "bounties" is because of the injury issue. And without that issue, the breaking of the "bonus rule" (if you will) means nothing to anyone outside of the NFL front office. And without the injury issue, the NFL is not going to do anything more than hit the coach's pocketbook and maybe suspend him for a game. It's HOW they broke the rule not THAT they broke the rule.

Agreed.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Question for the board

Let's see if I can do this in under a thousand words.

I would agree that the term "bounty" would insinuate more than paying for good plays. But the reason the term was coined was because there is heightened outrage associated with it. The rule is against bonuses - period. The "bounties" have typically covered everything from interceptions to hard hits on the QB to 100 yard games by RBs. The reason they are referring to what GW did as "bounties" is because of the injury issue. And without that issue, the breaking of the "bonus rule" (if you will) means nothing to anyone outside of the NFL front office. And without the injury issue, the NFL is not going to do anything more than hit the coach's pocketbook and maybe suspend him for a game. It's HOW they broke the rule not THAT they broke the rule.

You're arguing with no one. No one has argued that "breaking of the `bonus rule' (if you will) means" anything "to anyone outside of the NFL front office." I don't know where you think you get that from, but it's a misread of something.

And the word "bounty" means what it means. It means the offer of a non-contractual reward for an injury. That's the only way I have ever seen the term used.

 

[-X-]

Let it go......

I think everyone on the board stopped caring about 40 posts ago. A rule was broken, someone cares; injuries were wagered on, someone cares; football is violent, everyone knows; coaches were involved, that makes it bad; Goodell is displeased, and people will pay.

 

[Anonymous]

Let it go......

I think everyone on the board stopped caring about 40 posts ago. A rule was broken, someone cares; injuries were wagered on, someone cares; football is violent, everyone knows; coaches were involved, that makes it bad; Goodell is displeased, and people will pay.

Strictly speaking, is pointing out that a guy misread something or saying "but that's not what I said"--is that "not letting it go"?

Clearing up a misreading or a misunderstanding can happen in an environment where every agrees to disagree.

But at what point is it NOT fair simply to say "but I didn't say that."

All I can do I guess is state emphatically that in my last post I was right about THIS: regardless what anyone believes about this issue, or agrees to disagree about, I didn't make the argument attributed to me.

Normally, if someone tells me I misread them, I make an effort to clear it up. That's not the same as arguing just to argue. A guy has a right to say if he has been misread. Right?

 

[-X-]

 

[-X-]

Strictly speaking, is pointing out that a guy misread something or saying "but that's not what I said"--is that "not letting it go"?

Clearing up a misreading or a misunderstanding can happen in an environment where every agrees to disagree.

But at what point is it NOT fair simply to say "but I didn't say that."

All I can do I guess is state emphatically that in my last post I was right about THIS: regardless what anyone believes about this issue, or agrees to disagree about, I didn't make the argument attributed to me.

Normally, if someone tells me I misread them, I make an effort to clear it up. That's not the same as arguing just to argue. A guy has a right to say if he has been misread. Right?

I had to let Nick Wagoner have his say before I responded. You don't wanna make Nick Wagoner mad. He's the Godfather.

No, there's nothing wrong with you pointing out that someone misread you. The problem, as I see it, is that everyone is talking past one another now, and when I said "let it go", I was referring to everyone. And then I summed it up. Honestly, I can't get a handle on what you're actually trying to say, and that might be the problem with those you're arguing with as well. It just seems, to me, that your first response is to say "no...." and then make your same point over again. Also seems, to me, that you're taking arguments from other boards (with other people) and continuing the debate here. Why do I say that?

If you are speeding through a construction zone, the fines double. Do you think it is because of the basic speed rule or because you are potentially endangering peoples' lives?

Wow. Nice analogy. That really cuts to the heart of the issue.

I don;t think it does.

In part because people seem to be arguing with a case no one made. People seem to be arguing with someone who said that this is entirely about a narrow rule violation. But no one did argue that.

Your response to what I said to 503 makes no sense in the context provided. He said something, I liked the way it was phrased, and then gave my OPINION that it summed up what I felt (and he feels) is the heart of the issue. "People" may be arguing with a case no one made, but I wasn't. And he wasn't. So let me flip it around here. Is it okay if two people agree with each other without someone else claiming they're both somehow confused?

And THIS is why I suggested everyone just let it go. Because, quite honestly, this is balderdash.

Don't believe me? Ask Nick Wagoner.

.

 

[Anonymous]

Strictly speaking, is pointing out that a guy misread something or saying "but that's not what I said"--is that "not letting it go"?

Clearing up a misreading or a misunderstanding can happen in an environment where every agrees to disagree.

But at what point is it NOT fair simply to say "but I didn't say that."

All I can do I guess is state emphatically that in my last post I was right about THIS: regardless what anyone believes about this issue, or agrees to disagree about, I didn't make the argument attributed to me.

Normally, if someone tells me I misread them, I make an effort to clear it up. That's not the same as arguing just to argue. A guy has a right to say if he has been misread. Right?

I had to let Nick Wagoner have his say before I responded. You don't wanna make Nick Wagoner mad. He's the Godfather.

No, there's nothing wrong with you pointing out that someone misread you. The problem, as I see it, is that everyone is talking past one another now, and when I said "let it go", I was referring to everyone. And then I summed it up. Honestly, I can't get a handle on what you're actually trying to say, and that might be the problem with those you're arguing with as well. It just seems, to me, that your first response is to say "no...." and then make your same point over again. Also seems, to me, that you're taking arguments from other boards (with other people) and continuing the debate here. Why do I say that?

If you are speeding through a construction zone, the fines double. Do you think it is because of the basic speed rule or because you are potentially endangering peoples' lives?

Wow. Nice analogy. That really cuts to the heart of the issue.

I don;t think it does.

In part because people seem to be arguing with a case no one made. People seem to be arguing with someone who said that this is entirely about a narrow rule violation. But no one did argue that.

Your response to what I said to 503 makes no sense in the context provided. He said something, I liked the way it was phrased, and then gave my OPINION that it summed up what I felt (and he feels) is the heart of the issue. "People" may be arguing with a case no one made, but I wasn't. And he wasn't. So let me flip it around here. Is it okay if two people agree with each other without someone else claiming they're both somehow confused?

And THIS is why I suggested everyone just let it go. Because, quite honestly, this is balderdash.

Don't believe me? Ask Nick Wagoner.

.

Can we have this discussion? I would find it useful.

I am only going to speak in the abstract here. Leaving the actual past events out of it. I do that cause I am really interested in the higher issue, not the old argument.

But being misread causes all sorts of headaches. And they can cut both ways. I only want to figure out the best way to address it (in principle).

On the one hand, yeah, it is possible to take "you misread me" as saying "you're confused," which is personal. I can see how that would happen.

On the other hand, when someone says "you misread me," it is equally personal and problematical to assume they have bad motives for saying it.

It be one of them fraught things that can happen.

Here's my relationship to all that. I misread constantly. Like, all the time. I know I do it--at least once a week someone says "no that's not what I am saying." It doesn't even happen in just fraught environments. It just happens. And that's even with trying not to.

If someone tells me I misread, I just go okay, my mistake.

And I get misread a fair amount too. I have no idea why. Maybe it's cause I'm just not very clear. (If so, there's probably no cure for it.)

Anyway, I never intend any harm when I say it. I don't mean that the other person is "confused"--I just assume it happens on the net. I admit that I get impatient when I say it more than once, and maybe I should just go "okay we're talking past each other, so maybe best to move on."

Anyway. You don't even need to respond. I am just saying, saying that it happened is not meant to come across as an attack or a slight. I just assume misunderstanding is part of the net.

 

[-X-]

Can we have this discussion? I would find it useful.

I am only going to speak in the abstract here. Leaving the actual past events out of it. I do that cause I am really interested in the higher issue, not the old argument.

But being misread causes all sorts of headaches. And they can cut both ways. I only want to figure out the best way to address it (in principle).

On the one hand, yeah, it is possible to take "you misread me" as saying "you're confused," which is personal. I can see how that would happen.

On the other hand, when someone says "you misread me," it is equally personal and problematical to assume they have bad motives for saying it.

It be one of them fraught things that can happen.

Here's my relationship to all that. I misread constantly. Like, all the time. I know I do it--at least once a week someone says "no that's not what I am saying." It doesn't even happen in just fraught environments. It just happens. And that's even with trying not to.

If someone tells me I misread, I just go okay, my mistake.

And I get misread a fair amount too. I have no idea why. Maybe it's cause I'm just not very clear. (If so, there's probably no cure for it.)

Anyway, I never intend any harm when I say it. I don't mean that the other person is "confused"--I just assume it happens on the net. I admit that I get impatient when I say it more than once, and maybe I should just go "okay we're talking past each other, so maybe best to move on."

Anyway. You don't even need to respond. I am just saying, saying that it happened is not meant to come across as an attack or a slight. I just assume misunderstanding is part of the net.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me just be the first to say---yuck.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I lost track of what everyone was saying about 20 pages back. :huh:

 

[RamFan503]

I lost track of what everyone was saying about 20 pages back. :huh:

Let me bring you up to speed. Here's what you missed.....

............

Any questions?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Mostly it's because nothing new is coming out. There's not really much to talk about. So now we're just arguing on our own opinions. Everyone has different opinions on things, some people are bothered by it, some aren't, some are bothered by different aspects of it. Everyone is different really, so essentially we're arguing over nothing.

 

[Anonymous]

Mostly it's because nothing new is coming out. There's not really much to talk about..

Yeah just normal stuff like a 3 first rounder trade and free agency starting with a new regime.

 

[Faceplant]

I lost track of what everyone was saying about 20 pages back. :huh:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88[/youtube]



EDITED
-- Click the "share" button under videos, and insert that code.
-- You're welcome.

 

[steferfootball]

 

[-X-]

Nicely done. :lol:

 

[steferfootball]

I miss mardy. We haven't had a player to seriously make fun of since him.

There was Tye Hill, er I mean Justin King. But it just wasn't the same.

I nominate Adam Goldburg.