Unbelievable! Mike & Mike are still talking about Matt Walsh

[BSR]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

Lets turn this around then. Why would the NEP ever give Walsh the ability to speak without any recourse against him if he lies?

Also why would what he says make him credible or not? Shouldn't you know if he is credible or not now?

 

[fgssand]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

You speak as a Bills fan of course......Seems to me there is nothing stopping Matt Walsh from showing his "walk through" video, except that he either does not have one or illegally taped a walk through on his own.

It also seems to me, if that is the case, he could be in serious trouble, which is why he seeks protection and payment of his legal fees.

I would love to know who is paying his lawyers and spokespeople so far, or, if this is being done at no cost, then, I ask - why??

 

[SVN]

i think the fact that the pats have only 1 MNF game this season tells me kraft couldve pulled strings to avoid ESPN. On the other hand,ESPN can continue to bash the pats as supposed to if they had 5 games on MNF.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

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.

 

[Metaphors]

Lets turn this around then. Why would the NEP ever give Walsh the ability to speak without any recourse against him if he lies?

Not directing this just at you, but we need to stop with the "lying" angle of this story. Walsh was offered complete indemnity to provide testimony to Goodell and Specter. If he lied to them, he would be quietly discredited but wouldn't be sued. Walsh wants indemnity to offer up his information to ANYONE. Talk show appearances. Book deals. Whatever. This issue isn't about what he will say...it is about who he can say it to.

 

[BSR]

Not directing this just at you, but we need to stop with the "lying" angle of this story. Walsh was offered complete indemnity to provide testimony to Goodell and Specter. If he lied to them, he would be quietly discredited but wouldn't be sued. Walsh wants indemnity to offer up his information to ANYONE. Talk show appearances. Book deals. Whatever. This issue isn't about what he will say...it is about who he can say it to.

Good point. How much protection does he need just to tell the NFL what he knows?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Do you really think posting something here is really going to help their ratings or draw more viewers? If anything, this could have the opposite affect. I am sure that more than half the people on this board who read this thread would be less likely to listen to Mike and Mike now than they were before they read it.

If this was posted on a message board for a team where the fans generally hate the Pats, it might achieve their goal.

I used to think you were one of the brighter bulbs in the box, but I misjudged. I'm wasn't talking about Lupica, I'm talking about the subject and the person who brought it to prominence here again today...you. You just helped the Mike Lupica's of the football world achieve a goal, which makes you a dupe if not a dope. You did that by launching another Matt Walsh thread for folks to rehash the same tired months old arguments. Just like FBN and groundgame did yesterday. You've made at least one trolls day, not to mention the folks who live to argue with one, while boosting your own ratings and viewers so to speak.

Mediots and rival fans monitor sites like this to keep their finger on our pulse. Starting threads like these just confirms for to them that the Matt Walsh saga isn't dead yet as it still has an easily and frequently discernable pulse here. In fact on some level folks are still fairly obcessed with it.

You could retitle this thread RE: UNBELIEVABLE! PATSFANS.COM POSTERS ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT MATT WALSH.

The team has moved on. Even the league is trying to. And Specter has more pressing issues to deal with going forward. However the Patriots ever expanding fan base is no longer smart enough to follow their lead, preferring instead to follow ESPN's...

 

[Rob0729]

I used to think you were one of the brighter bulbs in the box, but I misjudged. I'm wasn't talking about Lupica, I'm talking about the subject and the person who brought it to prominence here again today...you. You just helped the Mike Lupica's of the football world achieve a goal, which makes you a dupe if not a dope. You did that by launching another Matt Walsh thread for folks to rehash the same tired months old arguments. Just like FBN and groundgame did yesterday. You've made at least one trolls day, not to mention the folks who live to argue with one, while boosting your own ratings and viewers so to speak.

Mediots and rival fans monitor sites like this to keep their finger on our pulse. Starting threads like these just confirms for to them that the Matt Walsh saga isn't dead yet as it still has an easily and frequently discernable pulse here. In fact on some level folks are still fairly obcessed with it.

You could retitle this thread RE: UNBELIEVABLE! PATSFANS.COM POSTERS ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT MATT WALSH.

The team has moved on. Even the league is trying to. And Specter has more pressing issues to deal with going forward. However the Patriots ever expanding fan base is no longer smart enough to follow their lead, preferring instead to follow ESPN's...

We are in a lull in the offseason. There hasn't been many real topics on this board for weeks. Why is it such a big deal that another Matt Walsh thread is being brought up especially since ESPN has chosen to make it a hot topic.

Just because Pats fans are still interested, doesn't mean that Cardinal fans are or Chief fans or Titan fans etc. This still affects the Pats fans. I bet if you check most other teams' boards, Matt Walsh threads are nowhere to be found. Just like there aren't any threads here about yet another Charger LB getting suspended yesterday or endless updates on the Jake Long negotiations with I bet are prevalent on Chargers and Dolphins boards respectively. Every team have their own hotbutton issues and Matt Walsh is for the Patriots. That doesn't mean that the pulse of the country is all about Matt Walsh.

I don't see how people have a problem when someone posts about some of the stupid things ESPN or another media outlet posts something favorable about the Patriots, but whenever they post something negative people get upset if someone starts a thread about it. This is a message board where people discuss all types of topics relating to the Patriots. If you don't like a particular topic, ignore the thread. I do that all the time. Based on the number of posts to this and other Matt Walsh threads, many people don't share your same opinion since there are plenty of people who respond.

I will rise above the personal attacks and not respond to those.

 

[Clonamery]

I will rise above the personal attacks and not respond to those.

Yeah, those weren't necessary, no matter one's frustration level.

The board overall is dripping in negativity and argument for argument's sake.

I'd like to see a moratorium on Walsh and Spygate until something "new" actually does develop.

 

[Kontradiction]

So when do we stop with the Matt Walsh threads? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is getting tired of them amirite?

 

[shmessy]

They are right. This isn't going away until we hear from Walsh himself what he has to say, without threat of being sued into oblivion. Plain and simple. I would think Pats fans themselves would want that--it's the only way for all of this to go away is for him to speak.

If he tells the truth he has nothing to worry about.

Please name me ONE instance in our society where one party says "Say whatever you want about me, whether it's true or not, and I won't protect myself legally".

That's idiotic.

Hey, I have an idea, FootballFanatic, why don't you give us YOUR actual name and complete legal indemnity and we can say whatever we want about you. Fair enough?

 

[shmessy]

So when do we stop with the Matt Walsh threads? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is getting tired of them amirite?

Here's a really cool trick.

Don't click on them.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's not about me clicking on them or not. It's about how we look to fans from other teams who lurk here. All these threads on the forum makes it look like we're either obsessed with it or we're still worried about whether or not Walsh has something. Either way, it's not good and it doesn't look good for the forum.

 

[shmessy]

I'm a lawyer myself, so in response to the prior comment on there being no reason Matt Walsh can't talk, I can tell you first hand that the lack of a confidentiality agreement in no way guarantees that a very rich man and very large organization can't make your life a living h*ll for telling the truth about them by dragging you through the mud (as the Pats and the League have already tried to do--that Boston Globe puff piece and the ex-FBI folks the NFL hired to investigate Walsh's background come to mind) and possibly suing you anyways in a spurrious defamation action that you'll have to spend years and hundreds of thousands to defend. You know what I just wrote is all true--your homer glasses just won't allow you to see it. For a literary version of this topic, try reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan (or check out the recent movie.)

By the same token, this doesn't mean that Walsh has the goods on the Pats, but we need to hear from him what he has so that we can judge for ourselves whether it's credible or not. Again, I defy anyone here to argue with that logic.

As I said earlier, why don't you identify yourself and give us legal indemnity to say whatever we want about you?

You make it sound so easy.

 

[Hok]

On SportsCenter, when they were talking about this year's Pats/Jets match-up, they mentioned that last years season opener served as the backdrop for the "still unresolved spygate matter" (or something like that).

Excuse me, but how is it unresolved? The Pats were caught and punished. That's the end of it until someone PROVES they violated any other rules.

 

[shmessy]

I see. As a lawyer, you begrudge the Patriots the right to sue to defend themselves against a lie. You would rather they renounced their legal rights, and allowed a known liar to have a platform without any reprecussions should he lie again. I respect the law, and some lawyers, but this is ridiculous.

Exactly. No Lawyer would ever call for any party to give up their legal ights against unfettered libel and slander.

FootballFanetic(sic) is no Lawyer.

 

[blackglass3]

As I said earlier, why don't you identify yourself and give us legal indemnity to say whatever we want about you?

You make it sound so easy.

As I said above, he comes in, troll bombs the thread, and then doesn't say crap afterwards.

Maybe he's busy being a "lawyer". It's real easy for him to say whatever he wants. Hey FootballFanetic, I am an astronaut. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[shmessy]

It's not about me clicking on them or not. It's about how we look to fans from other teams who lurk here. All these threads on the forum makes it look like we're either obsessed with it or we're still worried about whether or not Walsh has something. Either way, it's not good and it doesn't look good for the forum.

Got news for ya: Don't try to impress the other teams' fans. I've learned, over many years, that it's a losing proposition. Opposing fans don't look in the same mirrors.

Be more concerned about how others see us when there are threads with posts in it celebrating Senator Spector's recurrence of cancer. Now THAT is something to be concerned about - - which is why it had to be locked.

 

[Kontradiction]

Got news for ya: Don't try to impress the other teams' fans. I've learned, over many years, that it's a losing proposition. Opposing fans don't look in the same mirrors.

Be more concerned about how others see us when there are threads with posts in it celebrating Senator Spector's recurrence of cancer. Now THAT is something to be concerned about - - which is why it had to be locked.

Yeah, I wish I could have cut lose on that idiot with some nice profanity, but I'm at work unfortunately.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Mike & Mike just don't get it...SERIOUSLY! Why would this topic be on the top of everyone's mind? I know there actually exist some opposing fans who have become obsessed with their Patriot hatred, spygate & "I want answers!" crap, but they are few & far between.

These aren't our normal, stable types anyway. So who cares what they think?

The only time 99% of football fans think of Matt what's his name, is when it comes up. And in all honesty, it only seems to come up on ESPN...why is that?