Unbelievable! Mike & Mike are still talking about Matt Walsh

[Kontradiction]

Sure, this site, just like any other, bans posters when they get out of line. I'm not remembering your situation, but trolling without reasoning is bannable. Would be on your sites also, for your info.

Notice however, Counselor, that the ban evidently wasn't permanent (it could have been) since you've been able to come back. That, obviously, was a discretionary and evenhanded decision by the Mod who was dealing with you.

Also notice how you are fully able to argue your point here without any banning. Argue ideas is fine. Namecalling and trolling is not. I would expect a Lawyer to understand the difference.

I've been banned before on other message boards and it's actually ridiculously easy to come back. All you have to do is change your IP number and/or find a good proxy (I have an entire list ).

EDIT: For example, I was banned from FinHeaven last year for trolling and was back by the end of the week on a different screen name.

 

[shmessy]

I've been banned before on other message boards and it's actually ridiculously easy to come back. All you have to do is change your IP number and/or find a good proxy (I have an entire list ).

EDIT: For example, I was banned from FinHeaven last year for trolling and was back by the end of the week on a different screen name.

This guy has his original, misspelled, screenname. The ban was, obviously, temporary and meant as a warning.

Your situation was of a board trying to ban you permanently.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Kontradiction]

This guy has his original, misspelled, screenname. The ban was, obviously, temporary and meant as a warning.

Your situation was of a board trying to ban you permanently.

Apples and Oranges.

BUT THEY NEVAR SUCCEEDED

 

[PATSNUTme]

Actually, dude, I've been banned twice before here--for what, I have no idea. Read what I post--I don't attack anyone, but get attacked non-stop in return, but I was the one banned each time (in the run up to the SB, which was probably even you would admit, the height of NE arrogance). Never experienced that on any other team's boards before--ever.

Would you like to go for door #3? There won't be a door #4. Just keep on putting down this site one more time, and you can be relieved of your suffering.

Now, everyone does want to hear what Walsh has to say. There just one problem. Walsh and his lawyer won't say anythng. They are the ones holding this up.

Excuse us homers if we have run out of patience with Walsh and his lawyer. Such an objective person such as yourself should be able to understand the frustrations of Patriots fans when someone throws a slimeball accusation out against your team and then hides behind a scumbag lawyer who is looking for a big pay day. And he happen to do it on the week of the Super Bowl.

Surely an objective person like yourself can understand that.

 

[Rob0729]

Now THAT is the crux of the issue that FootballFanetic (sic) refuses to address:

Walsh isn't one lonely guy agains the legal bigwigs. He HAS a high powered Washington DC legal team completely bought and paid for by Spectpr, etc. If he has the goods, shouldn't they be able to protect him? WHY are they arguing for the Patriots to give up their legal rights against slander and libel?.........pssst, the answer is because thewy fear what Walsh has IS nothing more than slander and libel, hence the need for the protection.

What right should the Pats have really. I don't think any. Mike Easterbrook/Mike Fish (I am guessing they share the same brain) have already written the framework of a wonderful story of Matt Walsh, the little guy who against everything he believes in was forced to tear down the evil Patriots and the only crime Walsh is guilty of is loving the Patriots too much. If Walsh isn't allowed to lie and embellish what he has, that story won't be published. I think for the better good of the ESPN readership, the Patriots and NFL should waive all rights.

 

[shmessy]

Where did FootballFanetic (sic) go?

I merely asked a simple legal question. Has there EVER been a precedent for what he is demanding of the New England Patriots - - a complete self-abrogation of their rights to defend themselves against possible untuthful libel and/or slander.

Evidently the "Lawyer" took a recess.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Where did FootballFanetic (sic) go?

I merely asked a simple legal question. Has there EVER been a precedent for what he is demanding of the New England Patriots - - a complete self-abrogation of their rights to defend themselves against possible untuthful libel and/or slander.

Evidently the "Lawyer" took a recess.

Maybe he can't make a post without putting down this site?

 

[Rob0729]

Where did FootballFanetic (sic) go?

I merely asked a simple legal question. Has there EVER been a precedent for what he is demanding of the New England Patriots - - a complete self-abrogation of their rights to defend themselves against possible untuthful libel and/or slander.

Evidently the "Lawyer" took a recess.

I love it when a poster claims to be a lawyer and then knows less than the average person does about the law.

I wonder if he addresses the judge as "dude" like he did to you?

"I object, dude!"

 

[NEPatriot]

i rarely listen to ESPN radio because of anti-Pat atitude. Carl Hert's show is OK.

 

[wiggins!]

All of you are dead on with Greenberg. Let me add another one that will ruffle the feathers. He has plegded, and i've heard him do it from time to time already, that he will call the patriots the PA-TRI-OTS......because Bill Polian and Bob Knight do. He can't get a case of shut the *&^( up fast enough.

Then again, at these they're better than dennis and callahan or and other sh*t EEI has to offer!

 

[NEPatriot]

i never quite understand why these people hate pats with passion. Journalists suppose to be fair and balance.

 

[wiggins!]

well...greeny isn't really a journalist. He is however a NATIONAL talk show host. not one in NYC. for talk-show purposes, he is allowed to let his fandom come out.

IF, he ever acts like this on sportscenter, then he could actually be disciplined.

 

[BradyManny]

Ok, I was flipping through stations and I got to ESPN and Mike Lupica was on Mike & Mike and Lupica said that Matt Walsh is on the top of the minds of every sports fan in America. Really?!? Maybe because ESPN will drudge up any reason to bring back up the story while the collective sports audience may get riled up for a day or two when they do and then quickly forget the whole thing.

Later an e-mailer wrote Greeney saying that America doesn't care and he basically chastised the e-mailer and the rest of the country because they should think this is the most important topic in sports right now or something to that effect.

God damnit. We're a week away from the NFL draft and dumba**es like Mike and Mike are trying to stir up a story that has been dead for months (Walsh). That doesn't bode well for my hope that this NFL season could actually be about football.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

God damnit. We're a week away from the NFL draft and dumba**es like Mike and Mike are trying to stir up a story that has been dead for months (Walsh). That doesn't bode well for my hope that this NFL season could actually be about football.

i have one word for you, the nfl network. that's what i'll be watching.

 

[Kontradiction]

i have one word for you, the nfl network. that's what i'll be watching.

That's three words.

 

[stcjones]

Ok, I was flipping through stations and I got to ESPN and Mike Lupica was on Mike & Mike and Lupica said that Matt Walsh is on the top of the minds of every sports fan in America. Really?!? Maybe because ESPN will drudge up any reason to bring back up the story while the collective sports audience may get riled up for a day or two when they do and then quickly forget the whole thing.

Later an e-mailer wrote Greeney saying that America doesn't care and he basically chastised the e-mailer and the rest of the country because they should think this is the most important topic in sports right now or something to that effect.

That is primarily because Greeney (AKA Weak sister/****y) is a sore a##ed Jest fan who DESPISES the Pats, and Golic (aka Fat slob who fell off the nutrisystem wagon) is in bed with Arlene Sphincter as a rabid Eagle fan that uses his media pupit to try to do what he can to erase what the Pats did to his beloved team........These two douche bags are the most pathetic of all LOSERS!!!!!!!!

 

[stcjones]

But word is that Walsh and his attorney are looking for blanket indemedity which would ultimately cover things he said that are eventually proven false or out and out lies. I don't blame his attorney for trying to get it for him, but let's not make it sound like Walsh is a victim just protecting himself for telling the truth.

Besides, based on what the league said that they have offered to cover, Walsh wouldn't spend a dime defending himself if he does tell the truth. Granted since none of us are privvy to what offers have been bantered about, we do not know what the league has stipulated as Walsh telling the truth is to allow the league to opt out of the indemedity agreement.

As for the "Globe puff piece", Walsh made himself fair game when he opened his mouth. I don't see how that piece is any different than several of the "puff pieces" the NYT or ESPN have done to smear the Patriots without much evidence other than Walsh has something and he really wants to tell the world, but no one knows what it is besides him. Besides, some of the stuff about Walsh was found independent of the Patriots all together.

As for all of needing to hear to judge for ourselves, that is BS. People already have their prejudged opinions on Walsh and what he has and unless he has physical proof, people are going to believe what they want to believe. If Walsh says he knows Belichick shot Kennedy, there are going to be people who blindly believe him on it. Unless Walsh has physical evidence or can provide the league enough information to gain evidence to prove the Pats did something, Walsh speaking only satisfies the media's need to keep this story going. His allegations if there is nothing to support it does nothing other to cloud the issue even more.

are you a lawyer? If not you should be.......you make a heck of alot more sense than this butt pirate Footballfagatic.....what an ahole!!!! Good post!

 

[FootballFanetic]

are you a lawyer? If not you should be.......you make a heck of alot more sense than this butt pirate Footballfagatic.....what an ahole!!!! Good post!

...and I'm the one who gets banned. Shmessy, what was that talk about the difference between coming to discuss reasonably and just talking trash? I thought this board had a no trash talk policy?

 

[blackglass3]

...and I'm the one who gets banned. Shmessy, what was that talk about the difference between coming to discuss reasonably and just talking trash? I thought this board had a no trash talk policy?

From what I can tell you're still posting. That means you are not banned. And how do you know it's trash talking? Maybe where he's from, butt pirate means "cool dude".

I guess you could sue him. I would advise you to give up all of your legal rights just like you think the Patriots should do. But then again, I am just a lowly astronaut, so I wouldn't take my legal advice.

 

[FootballFanetic]

From what I can tell you're still posting. That means you are not banned. And how do you know it's trash talking? Maybe where he's from, butt pirate means "cool dude".

I guess you could sue him. I would advise you to give up all of your legal rights just like you think the Patriots should do. But then again, I am just a lowly astronaut, so I wouldn't take my legal advice.

....and they wonder why they're the most hated team in the League (it had to happen eventually, somebody supplanting the 'Boys for that "honor").

On the banning point, what's funny is that it was in all honesty for asking the very simply question the day the Matt Walsh story first broke in the NYT--"isn't anybody here concerned a little bit about what this Walsh guy is saying?" when his first quote that "there are things here that no one has taken responsibility for yet" came out. An honest question that I had--I wanted to see what people here thought about that ominous remark. It was, in the heady pre-SB days when you all thought you were about to make history rather than ignominy (that's public disgrace for the folks too lazy to look it up--I'll bet I've rewatched that game more than the rest of the posters on this thread combined--if I really wanted to troll, I'd just pull up some of those pre-Feb. 3 threads, like my favorite "Who Else Here Smells a Blowout?"), somehow taken as "trolling", yet here we sit nearly three months later and as you heard this morning at the top of this thread the whole sports world is still talking about the same thing and will until Walsh speaks. If you thought going to away games last year was tough, wait until this year--you ain't seen nothing yet in terms of abuse that's going to get heaped on you until this is resolved, which is why I'll say again, I really don't understand your insistence that this "just go away". (A) it won't and (B) until it's put to bed your team is under a cloud (witness last week's South Park episode), so why don't you want that cloud to lift?