RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 1:17:43 AM)

First of all I want to thank Jeff for saying something. Right or wrong I found myself to be very surprised by the silence. Normally when I joke around and someone's takes it the wrong way I feel right off the bat that I should attempt to rectify a wrong if someone feels hurt. Unless you attack me. The difference here is I was serious with what I said. John feels insulted and feels there's should be an apology but I feel that he was dead wrong on his reactions and words following my statement(s). The first thing John said after my statement (and he quoted my post to say it):John getting into racial profiling of dogs. Who'd a thunk it. was:
quote:

When has racial profiling ended? Or perhaps you can point out the race of humans bred for fighting?
Does that even make sense? Remember John was calling for the complete destruction of 2 entire breeds of dogs. As far as I'm aware there is word in existence that I could have used. Bredial profiling??? You are a Breedist??? Come on now. Don't forget I'm just talking about dogs here. I think I've done a good job of balancing my posts and not just slamming Vick or people or cultures every chance I get. And then I apparently dropped the big bomb: I just thought perhaps you might be a little more sensitive to the judging of an entire race/breed based on the actions of the few. I thought empathy was transferable. But he won’t budge and inch on any correlation of humans and any other life form. My thought on that is how could it possibly hurt anyone to care for all life? If they taught animal sensitivity classes from an early age it would only act to help people to grow up with a greater appreciation for all life. I learned a valuable lesson when my mother was dying. I listened in on her and my father talking one day and she told my father that is was alright, that she didn't need (whatever it was she was asking for) and that it was ok if he wanted to lie down because he had a bad headache. He said 'how can I complain when you're dying of cancer'. She said 'if you’re hurting, you're hurting'. I'm not in here trying to judge others on their passions and I hope that each and every one of you that has a passion for a cause has the time and ability to go out there and make as big of a difference as you can. What I don't understand is how I come out of this looking like a bad guy here when all I've done is exhibit a passion for animals. I realize that I haven't been perfect with every reply that I've made. I hate what I perceive to be attacks out of left field. Maybe this is all easy for the rest of you but balancing the silence or non responses with some of the ones you do get that question you as a person has been no easy task. I take severe offense to the way this has played out with two posters here. I can't associate with people like this in my life. I'm also saddened by the lack of responses. Thanks again to Jeff though, that was solid of you. There is something special about the collection of people that post here and I've strived very hard to be a part of that. I'm not sure where to go from here though.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 2:04:25 AM)

I didn't know what to say. I didn't think you meant to insult John, but at the same time, I can easily see how he would take it that way. You're very passionate about animals, which is good. Getting into it with a person who has probably experienced racial profiling to justify using that phrase with animals is dicey. That's between you guys, but I know others who would take offense the same way. When people use the term holocaust for analogies, it can be upsetting as well, especially to jewish people. I totally understand the point you were making, and I tried to echo that point. The problem with pitbulls or rottie's isn't inherent in the breed, it's that they are popular dogs that disgusting people neglect or abuse at a higher rate than other large breeds. "Eliminating" them would just transfer the problem to mastiffs, chows, or whatever the new "in" breed became. I do think having some sort of "permit" for larger breeds is at least an idea. I've met too many people that have big dogs just because they're "cool", and have no control over them. When a german sheperd or great dane is runnign loose in a neighborhood, it's owners should be severely punished. The truth is that any large breed can cause damage, but that is normally the problem by the owners, not the dogs themselve



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 2:17:53 AM)

quote:

I'm also saddened by the lack of responses.
I'm with E - I didn't know what to say. I have a nice rapport with both you and John and it's very uncomfortable to be in the middle of something like that and feel like I should take sides. While I never thought you made a direct correlation between blacks and dogs, which John implied, I can see how he might have been offended by any comparison between the racial profiling minorities receive and the breed discrimination that dog owners are exposed to. And at the same time, I see and understand your love of animals and how strongly you've been affected by the dogfighting discussion. But I think the reason most of us have stayed quiet here, and have also stayed out of the Bill/E traded barbs in the other thread is that we feel uncomfortable about taking sides in a personal battle.



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 2:44:51 AM)

I appreciate the reasoned responses Lynn and E. I tool some time to consider what to say and to not post from emotion but I didn't think enough about people not wanting to take sides. I can respect that. John, I am ignorant when it comes to how a person such as yourself feels on race issues. All I can do is assure you that I do not feel one ounce of prejudice towards African American people. I only ever wanted this to be about the dogs. I'm sorry I offended you. I don't want to do this any more with you though. I may be ignorant but there has to be bigger battles to be won than one against a man that is not racist.



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 2:59:40 AM)

First of all I want to thank Jeff for saying something. LOL. I think that is a compliment. :scratch: All jokes aside. I didn't see anything that was offensive but like I told JC, maybe I just missed it. I agree with Lynn and E, I don't know what JC has been through so I just take it at word that it was offensive to him. I think the problem is that you guys let it get too far. No problem from here on out though. You're both grown men. Just agree to disagree. You've already said, what I believe is a heart felt apology. Nothing but good times for you both. A line from one of my favorite movies (Outside Providence).....You're both good shits.



Eric Arnold -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 4:29:28 AM)

[quote="Danimal"]you're wasting your time with Erica's protegé It's the irrefutable logic of the "I'm smarter, you're not." pointless[/quote] Dang, I am not even posting in this thread and I assume this slam was aimed at me. Toby can call me 'Erica' on occasion because it is funny since I purposefully have called him the wrong name dozens of times (and I only did it because he is a great guy that can take a joke). I can take a joke also, but your post wasn't a joke, it was a BS misogynistic attempted insult out of the blue from a poster that I have not even had a discussion with for months because he has nothing of any value to add. Hey, you can post your half-witted tripe until the cows come home for all I care, but being a woman should never be used as a putdown. Hopefully, you can find ways to insult my manhood without showing your misogyny. FWIW, trying to 'call' me a woman's name surely isn't going to bother me as I have proven my manhood to the few people that are important enough for me to do so. I am not sure how exactly I am supposed to prove my manhood on an Internet chatroom, but if your posts are a guide to what you think proves 'manhood', we can only guess that misogynistic slams and emotionally-imbalanced, nonsensical diatribes are what passes for 'proving manhood' IYO. If you are supposed to be the example of 'manliness', I am happy not to qualify IYO as we have a far different bar on the matter. Although I would guess from your eagerness to post your Speedo picture on a football chatroom that you are pretty desperate to prove your manliness one way or the other.... :shock: BTW, I would never brag about being "smarter than you" as that is hardly any sort of elite status, nor would that ever be something that would prove my point (or anyone else's) in a debate. My issue with you has never been that I am smarter than you, but rather that your nonsensical crap is not usually worth my time. Now I could see how that would seem to be similar to you, but it is not the same thing. And I know I am wasting my time here because there is no accomplishment or joy in attempting to win a debate with a person that could not argue his way out of a paper bag; insult the bag and then would call it a "female" for your coup de gras.... BRILLIANT!



Eric Arnold -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 4:46:45 AM)

[quote="John Childress"] Let someone compare your race to dogs and see how much you laugh. [/quote] This is silly and illogical. The comparison was about races and breeds (not a race and dogs in general) and was actually AGAINST both racism and 'breedism'! No certain breed was directly compared to any race and since Todd has a mixed Pit Bull and presumably loves it then it would be hard to be insulted even if this was not true. This all smacks of emotionalistic ad hom BS where you use accusations of racism like they were going out of style. You have tried and smeared many of us here with your same standard MO. Listen, I am sorry that some racist A-holes have so damaged you so much that you see racism under every rock, I really am, but do not take it out on innocent people. If these threads start becoming the JC/Dan/Bill and EasyE flame war fests that they have been lately then this loosened/absent moderator experiment on these threads may go down as a complete failure. (Yes, I know I have been involved in my share of flame wars over the years also, but they get uglier when some people are allowed to basically run wild with their contempt).



Eric Arnold -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 4:54:29 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"] John, I am ignorant when it comes to how a person such as yourself feels on race issues. All I can do is assure you that I do not feel one ounce of prejudice towards African American people. I only ever wanted this to be about the dogs. I'm sorry I offended you. I don't want to do this any more with you though. I may be ignorant but there has to be bigger battles to be won than one against a man that is not racist.[/quote] Giving in and apologizing when someone flies off the handle and berates you in one of the most vile ways for no reason? Posters have seen this SOS for years and should stand up against the knee-jerk racism claims that JC trots out on a near weekly basis.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 5:11:18 AM)

Who pulled your string Eric? poor put upon eric..... erica..... hmmmm, how many eric's post here? only one ARNOLD, so yea, you got dissed by run together letters maybe it was a typo, no, it wasn't, but how did you stumble upon that? Catching up on your light reading or did a sycophant send you an ALERT pm? waaaa booo hoo.... I'm soo sorry that some bully gave you a nerd wedgie which causes knee-jerk reactionism as an adult, when you feel "dissed", and demands you proclaim your superiority and "being above it all". you waste 7 paragraphs of mindless drivel on 3 lines of text from me?? I'm flattered.... NOT death to haters!!! :whistling:



Eric Arnold -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 5:37:55 AM)

[quote="Danimal"] mindless drivel[/quote] The Cliff's Notes version of your post.... ;) Listen, I wrote my responses to you and JC before I read about Conrad. Battling on the Internet with two people that will never change seems pretty pointless when staring down something far more meaningful and real. Plus, I think all these idiotic flame wars are killing the site, so why start another one? At the end of the day, as much as I do not like certain elements of your or JC's posting style, I really have no hard feelings to you. Put another way, if it was you or JC that were in Conrad's shoes, I would be saddened. It was sad that you were hurt by that @$$#*!& that tried to rob you and I hope that you would feel the same way if Todd or I were in the same place you were. I guess what I am saying is "can't we all just get along"? :viking:



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 6:11:06 AM)

I am sorry I got involved in a flame war, it was not my intent and it's not going to continue.



Eric Arnold -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 9:18:59 AM)

[quote="Easy E"]I am sorry I got involved in a flame war, it was not my intent and it's not going to continue.[/quote] I remember when you and I had hard feelings and things were pretty nasty and we resolved it by seeing that we both thought the other guy started it and was the aggressor and basically 'in the wrong'. The problem is that this enabled both of us to think we were justified in slamming the other guy. And the vicious cycle continued.... on and on. And everyone lost. It seems pretty obvious that many of the same people get involved in flame wars over and over again (and yes, I am one of these people!) and the reason is not that the people are bad or like to get into ugly battles (I hate it and I have heard you say the same), but rather we are all very strong-willed and do not like backing down, especially to someone that we believe is 'behaving badly'. Anyway, I am very thankful that things have improved between us and I hope things are going well with your family.



Toby Stumbo -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/13/2007 2:28:59 PM)

I think this subject can be closed, anything else can be talked about in the politics section. LOCKED



Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/16/2007 4:38:30 PM)

Vick's Apology Notes Fetch $10,200 Sat Sep 15, 2007 AP reports a television writer and producer paid $10,200 for what an animal rights group said are notes from Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick's speech apologizing for a dogfighting scandal. Carol Leifer made the winning bid for the notes sold by the Humane Society of the United States. Leifer is a writer and co-executive producer of Rules of Engagement, a CBS comedy. The eBay auction that began Sept. 4 ended on Friday. "Michael Vick ironically never made the most important apology — the one to the animals themselves," Leifer said in an e-mail to the Humane Society of the United States. Vick's attorneys have said Vick did not write the notes, but declined to say whether an attorney or adviser wrote them for him. All proceeds will be used for the group's efforts against dogfighting, said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States. The group said one of its employees found the notes when he retrieved his microphone from the hotel podium where Vick delivered his apology Aug. 27.



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/27/2007 2:30:21 AM)

Vick tests positive for Mary Jane. Nice move dummy. He's cooked for sure now.



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/30/2007 4:16:36 PM)

Michael Vick's Lawyers 'Incredulous' After Positive Marijuana Test Has the legal team for suspended Falcons quarterback Michael Vick gotten sick and tired of dealing with him? That's the impression given by Len Pasquarelli of ESPN.com (In$ider), who keeps in close contact with the Vick camp and indicates Vick's lawyers aren't feeling very good about their job right now: Even some members of Michael Vick's high-profile defense team were incredulous at the news this week that the banished Atlanta Falcons quarterback tested positive for marijuana earlier this month in a pre-trial drug screening. There were actually a few members of the Vick counsel camp who felt confident that U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Va., was leaning toward a sentence on the light side of the 12- to 18-month term that was recommended by federal guidelines. In fact, one prominent member of the defense team suggested to ESPN.com the sentence might be more in the 6- to 10-month range. That optimism went up in smoke this week. Not only does Hudson figure to come down harder on Vick with the revelation of the positive test, but the quarterback is in even deeper trouble now with the league and commissioner Roger Goodell. Vick will almost certainly still be in federal prison at the start of the 2008 season, and there's a fair chance he'll still be in federal prison at the start of the 2009 season. He also might have to do time in state prison. And whenever he gets out of prison, he'll probably still have to serve an additional -- and lengthy -- NFL suspension for violating the league's personal-conduct policy by running a dog fighting ring. And then he might face an additional suspension for violating the league's substance-abuse policy. And then if he's eventually reinstated, he'd have to convince an NFL team that signing him is worth the PETA protests. I don't think Vick is ever going to play in the NFL again. Way to go Smokey Joe. Something I find harmless is making things worse for a man I felt would get off light for doing things I find atrocious. Now if that's not irony.



Kurtis -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/30/2007 5:58:15 PM)

In Vick's defense, dog fights are much funnier when you're completely baked.



djskillz -> RE:Mike Vick case (9/30/2007 6:03:51 PM)

Anyone see SNL's "Angry Dog" dog food commercial last night? Pretty funny stuff.



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/1/2007 3:35:44 AM)

[quote="Kurtis Scaletta"]In Vick's defense, dog fights are much funnier when you're completely baked.[/quote] :rofl: :rofl:



Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/5/2007 1:53:16 PM)

NFLPA Back Vick in Falcons' Attempt to Rcoup Bonus Money Thu Oct 4, 2007 AP reports NFL Players Association lawyers argued Thursday that the league's collective bargaining agreement protects QB Michael Vick from the Atlanta Falcons' attempts to be refunded up to $22 million in bonus money. A decision is expected by Oct. 12, said Stephen B. Burbank, the University of Pennsylvania law professor and special master who led the arbitration hearing. The Falcons argued the suspended Falcons quarterback knew he was in violation of the contract when he signed the $130 million deal in December 2004, and that he used proceeds from the deal to fund his dogfighting operation. New York-based attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who represented Vick and the NFLPA, countered that the CBA extension agreed to last year prevents forfeiture of bonus money even if the player contract says otherwise, union spokesman Carl Francis said. NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen also represented Vick. Team president and GM Rich McKay led the Falcons' group.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/5/2007 5:26:29 PM)

ATL is going to have a tough go getting all that money



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/5/2007 5:42:03 PM)

I'll bet they don't expect to get it all back, but they're making a point and will settle for something considerably less. I don't know how the bonus money was written up in the contract, but even the NFLPA can't claim he earned everything they've paid him.



Jim Frenette -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/11/2007 1:06:46 AM)

I'm not so sure I agree with the Falcons and the arbitrator. I'm not condoning what he did by no means, but some of that money they want back is roster bonuses and as long as they kept him on the roster and played, then he shouldn't have to pay that back.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/11/2007 4:48:55 AM)

[quote="Jim Frenette"]I'm not so sure I agree with the Falcons and the arbitrator. I'm not condoning what he did by no means, but some of that money they want back is roster bonuses and as long as they kept him on the roster and played, then he shouldn't have to pay that back.[/quote] You still have to earn a RB, by making a faithful effort to fulfill your contract. Vick knew he was already engaged in criminal activity when he signed his contract, in fact he was in violation of his contract the second he signed it. That means he was in violation of his contract for 100% of the duration. I believe that means he must forfeit 100% of any bonuses he received. But he gets paid his salary for services delivered over the part of the contract he played.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/11/2007 2:44:16 PM)

I disagree. This is selective enforcement. Teams have not gone after roster bonuses for guys caught with steroids. Not only that, it is overkill. Football already has the most pro-owner labor agreement in all of professional sports. Look at baseball and basketball. Owners not only can't go after signing bonuses they still have to pay those guaranteed salaries! Football players give up a good percentage of their healthy bodies to play this sport. They are betrayed by a corrupt union chief who is a shill for management. Screw the Falcons and all these owners. They want to make all of the profit in the world with no risk or downside. They paid Vick a bonus to come and play those years and he did. Deal with it



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode