Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[E Belichick Unum]

Ah, the intelligentsia checks in!

I understand, you just want to protect your one true love and replay all the nasty, vile, troglydytes who would dare implicate her as being somehow, biased!

So tell me, boxers or thong?

 

[moosekill]

Again, they acted like a monopoly, BUT NOT IN THE WAY WE ARE DISCUSSING. They never impeded the players from seeking employment in the USFL which is what lamafist is allegedging they are doing. Microsoft lost an antitrust case dealing with peripheral being bundled with their operating system, but never with their domination of the operating system market. That doesn't mean they were a monopoly in the operating system market.

Hey, if I am guessing, you are guessing too. Stop being so friggin condescending or produce your **** JD in antitrust law. This is why I can't stand you. You think you are intellectually superior to everyone. When in fact you are just a condescending ****. But hey, there is nothing wrong with that.

Well played

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Is there a big difference between someone insulting the judge for her ruling, and you insulting posters intelligence for their opinions?

There is, actually, Andy, when the one is defending a sexist and homophobic post, which has no place on this or any board, and the other is responding in mocking tones to a statement that was intended to insult someone but instead revealed more about its author than I am sure was intended.

Putting up pictures of judges and vilifying them is protected by Free Speech. Making or defending sexist and/or homophobic remarks about them starts to get close to the line of Hate speech and is something that I'll attack here or anywhere else any day of the week.



(For what it's worth, "intelligentsia" refers to a class of people not to an individual's intelligence or IQ, but I really don't want to debate that point in the thread. If you want to argue it, please send me a PM. And, BTW, you have personally called posters "ignorant" in your own posting...ironically, I actually called you out on it once, but you didn't have the guts to respond to me.)

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I understand, you just want to protect your one true love and replay all the nasty, vile, troglydytes who would dare implicate her as being somehow, biased!

So tell me, boxers or thong?

It is possible to suggest bias without using sexist or homophobic language, as I believe the post did. But, I'm not sure that that distinction isn't lost on you.

If the poster had said that this was a judge, appointed by a Liberal Democrat and from a traditionally liberal state, I'd have had no problem with that, as both are the case and so are fair fodder for commentary. I would also have hoped that he would have acknowledged that Judge Nelson's predecessor on the case, also amply criticized for his rulings by those who disagree with them, was appointed by a Conservative Republican.

 

[Joker]

Just to get this straight.

Is the judge disqualified from ruling in this case because of her gender or her alleged sexual orientation? Or both? You leave that ambiguous.

How, indeed, do "near troglydytes" feel about the sport we are discussing? (I understand that real troglodytes have trouble spelling.)

Is the "hope to see you next year" a real or implied threat or just a bad joke? I suspect you meant it as a joke, but there are some who might see it otherwise.

Do you have the vaguest notion how bad an idea it is to post a picture of a judge, with personal attacks, borderline threats and details of her personal life (true or false), in a heated thread about a decision she has recently made?

If you can't argue on the facts, you have lost the argument.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

It is possible to suggest bias without using sexist or homophobic language, as I believe the post did. But, I'm not sure that that distinction isn't lost on you.

If the poster had said that this was a judge, appointed by a Liberal Democrat and from a traditionally liberal state, I'd have had no problem with that, as both are the case and so are fair fodder for commentary. I would also have hoped that he would have acknowledged that Judge Nelson's predecessor on the case, also amply criticized for his rulings by those who disagree with them, was appointed by a Conservative Republican.

I was just offering some free counsel. I may not be a psychiatrist, but I did stay in a Holliday Inn Express in downtown St. Paul.

Ok, forget the bathrobe, and the bubble, just stick with the whine.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

So tell me, boxers or thong?

Never mind, I figured it out.

 

[lamafist]

Again, they acted like a monopoly, BUT NOT IN THE WAY WE ARE DISCUSSING. They never impeded the players from seeking employment in the USFL which is what lamafist is allegedging they are doing. Microsoft lost an antitrust case dealing with peripheral being bundled with their operating system, but never with their domination of the operating system market. That doesn't mean they were a monopoly in the operating system market.

Hey, if I am guessing, you are guessing too. Stop being so friggin condescending or produce your **** JD in antitrust law. This is why I can't stand you. You think you are intellectually superior to everyone. When in fact you are just a condescending ****. But hey, there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't think I alleged what you think I alleged. I certainly didn't intend to.

Whether the NFL is impeding players from signing with the USFL, the UFL, or the WNBA is besides the point. Absent a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing the players, the NFL's franchises cannot impede a player seeking employment with any of the other NFL franchises, and any collateral agreement to respect another franchise's claim on a player would be an antitrust violation.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

To All:

1) I appoligize if I have offended anybody.
2) To Judge Nelson, you may have a face like a horse, but exposing your philly to ridicule is just wrong.
3) To PatsFanSince74, please do not take offense at what I am about to post.

New England Patriots Women's Mystic Memory II Thong

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I was just offering some free council.

Sigh.

Free council? I'll take 4 please.

To think there was a time I was worried I was saying too much in this now insane thread.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Sigh.

Free council? I'll take 4 please.

To think there was a time I was worried I was saying too much in this now insane thread.

You are correct, I will fix my mistake.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't think I alleged what you think I alleged. I certainly didn't intend to.

Whether the NFL is impeding players from signing with the USFL, the UFL, or the WNBA is besides the point. Absent a collective bargaining agreement with a union representing the players, the NFL's franchises cannot impede a player seeking employment with any of the other NFL franchises, and any collateral agreement to respect another franchise's claim on a player would be an antitrust violation.

First, who said the NFL was impeding player from working at any other NFL franchise? They can certainly impede players who are under contract. But I have yet to see the Pats try to stop Logan Mankins from signing elsewhere or any other tendered UFA or RFA.

Second, if this is your original point, it is ever farther away from Deus' argument than I thought. You aren't even talking out any outside entity of the NFL at all.

Third, so far the only thing we know the NFL is doing post lockout in terms of employment is the draft and that was covered under the previous CBA. The players are not contesting at this point that the draft is in violation of antitrust laws. Until we see how the NFL approaches free agency post lockout enjoinment (assuming they don't get a stay), how can we argue the NFL is impeding the players' ability to get the most money.

Personally, I hope to God the players don't push for and win for a free market system. It will be the end of the NFL as we know it. It won't be horrible for Pats fans specifically because they have the opportunity to be the Red Sox or Yankees of the NFL, but it would be terrible for fans of teams in small markets like Jacksonville, Tampa, Cincy, etc. If the players are smart, they will allow the league to have a capped system and free agency (most likely following the 2010 rules) while this is being sorted out.

 

[Ring 6]

There is, actually, Andy, when the one is defending a sexist and homophobic post, which has no place on this or any board, and the other is responding in mocking tones to a statement that was intended to insult someone but instead revealed more about its author than I am sure was intended.

So your opinion is allowed and someone elses is not?

Putting up pictures of judges and vilifying them is protected by Free Speech. Making or defending sexist and/or homophobic remarks about them starts to get close to the line of Hate speech and is something that I'll attack here or anywhere else any day of the week.

Then why would you need to resort to insults?
i just find it funny that you stake your moral high ground and sling insults from it.

(For what it's worth, "intelligentsia" refers to a class of people not to an individual's intelligence or IQ, but I really don't want to debate that point in the thread. If you want to argue it, please send me a PM. And, BTW, you have personally called posters "ignorant" in your own posting...ironically, I actually called you out on it once, but you didn't have the guts to respond to me.)

I am sure I have used the word 'ignorant' many times, it is a valid description of an uninformed point of view.
I am also 100% certain that I have never lacked the 'guts' to respond to anything you have said.
Perhaps you can show me where you 'called me out' and preceived it made me afraid, and I will clarify.

You have every right to call people names. I think you should recognize however, that if you are trying to make a point that they have posted something inappropriate, doing so severely diminishes the point you are trying to make.

As you can see here, you felt compelled to throw in the obligatory criticism of me in response to me asking why you felt it necessary to use insults in reprimanding someone for posting insults.

 

[Joker]

for the sake of board decorum, please allow me to apologize....

Dear Judge Dredd......

I humbly apologize for referring to your blow-up pornstar doll as a "live-in" girl friend...and in the future I will refrain from making sarcastic "tea and scones" comments and replace them with "mimosas and watercress sandwiches"..or as we trogs call them, sangweeches...thanx

Joe Kerr

p.s. I also apologize in advance for any negative comments I may make about other mythical entities such as..

 

[TruthSeeker]

In fairness, the NFLPA was encouraged to reconvene in the settlement of White vs. the NFL, no?

Anyway, I read your prior post earlier this afternoon, as well as this one. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't hesitate to dominate threads with clearly reasoned arguments delivered dispassionately.

I see why the NFL could argue that Norris Laguardia applies, but I find Nelson's reasoning in her decision that it doesn't more compelling. At the point of the termination of the CBA, there was no legal dispute. The players had declaimed their union, and all of the terms of any agreement it had negotiated on their behalf had expired. The simple absence of a new bargaining agreement does not comprise a 'labor dispute'. It wasn't until the league instituted a lockout and the players filed suit that the present labor dispute came about. Among the numerous cases Nelson cites to support this reasoning, the most compelling ones are Jackson vs. the NFL and White vs. the NFL, both arising from the same circumstances as at present, and in both cases, it was ruled that Norris Laguardia doesn't apply and injunctive relief was appropriate.

Contrary to the NFL's argument, and in line with legal precedent, Nelson does not consider the players' declaiming of their union to be a simple matter of formality, especially considering what the players give up in the process.

I had a hard time believing that anyone would truly think the current state of affairs between the NFL and players is not either a labor dispute or arising out of a labor dispute. But I'm wrong again.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

You mean to tell me that Bigfoot is NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[townes]

I had a hard time believing that anyone would truly think the current state of affairs between the NFL and players is not either a labor dispute or arising out of a labor dispute. But I'm wrong again.

The players formed the union because the owners required it as a condition of maintaining the CBA that was agreed upon. The owners opted out of that CBA and locked the players out denying them work and pay. Why on earth would the players stay in a union the owners required them to form when the owners had opted out of that agreement?


The decertification isn't the sham the lockout is, as the owners are already forcing fans to pay for a season the players are locked out from playing.

 

[Joker]

You mean to tell me that Bigfoot is NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well,if he /she is (note the political correctness of that delineation) I'm sure I will be facing a defamation of character lawsuit and possible immolation or lethal injection as ordered by Overlord Obtuse of the Planet Moron P.C. Commission....poor Joe Kerr...:bricks:

 

[Joker]

The decertification isn't the sham the lockout is, as the owners are already forcing fans to pay for a season the players are locked out from playing.

some fans...there IS a difference...personally, I will contribute ZERO until this mess is finally resolved

 

[townes]

No, what I said was that Judge Nelson lied about believing that the union has disbanded. The players want the union, need the union. I hope thatt the owners honor all contracts and lower the salary structure of the NFL to that of US Steel. That they make the players pay for dependant health insurance and that they make the players pay for their meals, ride coach and get a feel of what it is like to be just a guy.

The owners own the team, the players are employees and because of some antiquated laws football will be ruined and turned into baseball. I stoped watching baseball because I got sick of players b!tching and moaning about everything. If the players wanted to decertify, or not, they are now and the owners should tale full advantage of that fact.

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. The owners required the union and the owners are the ones who need the union, not the players. It was the owners who required the players to form the union and that is clear in the legal decisions that have been written on it. Upshaw testified that they would not have formed the union had the owners not required it to maintain the CBA.


Your posts are no different than someone saying they hope the players get damages that would kill the league and put it out of existence. You apparently feel people should be forced to stay in unions they don't want to be in and are foaming at the mouth because the judge didn't force them to do so.