The answer is the first line. Stick with what works. In game conduct hasn't been an issue in terms of process.Originally Posted by mraynrand
The answer is the first line. Stick with what works. In game conduct hasn't been an issue in terms of process.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I agree, but that's not what I was rhetorically 'asking.'
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Mea culpa.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
It's not a big deal. You made some good points. But, I should have just made a direct statement: All I'm saying is that when you get taken to court and lose, you're gonna be gun shy. And having the precedent of being taken to court and winning against the NFL will inevitably lead to more cases being taken to court against the NFL (especially the more nebulously addressed they are by the NFLPA and bargaining).
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Well, that is what I thought you meant originally. I am not having a good day for cognition or communication.
I understand gun shy, but to read either the Rice, Hardy, Peterson or Brady cases as having on impact on conduct during a game seems a big reach. There is ample precedent to stand on.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote