firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Can't a franchise void a player's contract for character reasons? Wasn't this talked about when Kobe was first accused of rape?
Wow please tell me you didnt just compare shoelaces and clubbing to rape 
No, only an idiot would assume that.
No, only a fool wouldnt go back, look at the sentence they wrote and not think "hmmm yeah that kinda looks a leeeeetle bit tasteless maybe I'll just change the wording a bit".
A criminal is a criminal. Even so, I'm not going to presume that someone that did jail time for dealing weed is the same class of criminal as a serial murder. I'd like to think that this would be common sense.
NardDogNation wrote:firefly wrote:Dont really know what assumptions are required. You state "can't a franchise void a players contract for character reasons?". The precedent for this that you bring is when s player was accused of raping a girl and contract voiding was discussed. You are quite clearly correlating JR's silly unprofessional goofball character issues to the case of Kobe being accused of rape. What assumptions?
Dude, do you really want to go down this path? I'm still on vacation and I can be extremely petty. I'll do this all day until your fingers bleed from typing too much. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Ah. So, to summarise your responses:
1. All criminals and therefore by definition all crimes, are the same.
2.Even though I just said that, twice, obviously I didn't mean that.
3.Dont mess with me because I have super fingers and a child like attitude and am therefore your worst nightmare. If you call me on this I will make your life hell because that is my definition of reasoned debate and I'd rather make (one of the most ludicrously puny) threats then hold my hands up about a mistake I made. I'm the guy that writes things like "I hope you kill yourself and die" on YouTube and am in fact so unrepentant about my belief that this is how humans should in fact behave that, and I can't stress this enough, I can keep doing it all day.
4. Big deal. So I compared the most heinous desecration of human innocence with acting like a child and smoking weed. So what?
Good to know the kind of world class mind we're dealing with here. You'll go far my friend. Thumbs up to you. Enjoy your vacation. They can't wait for you to leave.
Felt it was important to keep this all in one place. Denial's not just a river in Egypt.
..and evidently, reading comprehension isn't something that is stressed enough in the United Kingdom. I'm glad we could learn about the world together.
Just to reiterate, not all transgressions are created equal BUT you can go to jail for them. No, JR didn't commit rape but he certainly has a long and demonstrated record that could be described as "character" offenses (even though he temporarily seemed to straighten up as a Knick). Kobe creeped into the conversation because it's an instance where this provision may have been brought up and was public enough for someone else to know, to help me confirm its existence. Thanks for playing.
Well I for one am glad the hear you backing away from your original language. If you recall my point was simply that you seem to be comparing JR's (relatively in the great scheme of this) mild behavior to Kobe being accused of rape. It certainly looked like that on reading your words and I cant be the only one who thought so.
When you started trying to back up your original statement with things like "a criminal is a criminal" I started thinking maybe it wasn't just an insensitive accidental correlation and maybe you actually thought of those two things together. Glad to hear you don't. My only point here was that it sounded like you were comparing the two based on the language you used.
Whilst I appreciate you escalating it to petty threats and meaningless internet anger, I think we can all agree that the bottom line is, that's not what you meant, it was just a quick posting that looked worse than it actually was. Unless you stand by your statement in which case I think you're a morally inept fool. But you're not are you? Are you?
Dude, you can try to save face for others that may have followed this exchange but that **** isn't going to work for me. The intent of my original post has not changed and has always been clear. It's not my fault that you couldn't follow it and jumped to some stupid ass conclusion.
Hey you said the word Shit to emphasis a point. Thats like big tough street talk no? Well then, I back down mr big scary street man. If that Shit dont fly with you, I simply cant imagine what I could ever do to convince you.
I dont need to save face. Im not the knob that wrote "Can't a franchise void a player's contract for character reasons? Wasn't this talked about when Kobe was first accused of rape?" which i exactly the same as saying "Well, now that Johnny got that speeding ticket, cant the company void his contract for illegal activities? Wasnt this talked about when Peter was first accused of touching that little boy in the playground?"
You had a chance to clarify your "intent" after your horrific faux pas in the original post yet you chose not to. Your response was "criminals are criminals" followed by some awesome threats about your spectacular ability to type a lot. Youll never have to convince me of your pettiness again. So whos that knob?
You are. Youre that knob. Yes, you. Bet you cant quite believe it but its true. You have graduated to world class muppet status. After all these years you have finally reached the promised land. Yay you!!
My response suggested that "criminals may be criminals" but it was important to recognize that "not all crimes are created equal". That much should've been obvious because it falls into the realm of common sense, which evidently isn't too "common". But keep writing your essays to try to throw off that "stupid" scent. It's making my day, lol.
I can be prone to verbosity as I construct my send closks Ill grant you that. Ah, I see you've brought out the lol. That mainstay of point proving and thanksforplayingness. Hate to say it but youre making absolutely no difference to my day but I am glad ive made an impression.
Your response didnt "suggest" anything. It said it right there in text. Black on blue and orange. And yes, the fact that not all crimes are equal is indeed common sense. Which is why, when I mentioned it seemed like you were comparing minor to massive your response should have been "oh yeah it kinda does look like ive done that. Obviously didnt mean to, let me fix that. But you didnt. You called me an idiot. For that was your immediate response. Belittle the person who was trying to point out you may have made a mistake. I should have know you make no mistakes. I should have know to leave you to your own devices. Im glad you went with the mature option.
It wasnt by the way. That was sarcasm before.
Check the timeline again. Your initial response was:
Wow please tell me you didnt just compare shoelaces and clubbing to rape
My immediate response was:
No, only an idiot would assume that.
If you examine the semantics of my response, it can easily be observed that the subject of it is unclear and not explicitly stated (either by username, pronoun, etc.) My response could've been interpreted in one of two ways:
1.) That I was, in effect, calling you stupid. Or...
2.) (Rightly so) I was calling a hypothetical person who would believe that several character flaws were equitable to something like rape.
You chose the former for some reason, perhaps due to a guilty conscience, and the rest is history. For the record, I did not officially call you an "idiot" until it could be fully confirmed (I.e. putting words in my mouth and also by making wild conjectures). Abraham Lincoln said it best, "(Tis) better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and erase all doubt".
