- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 68,309
- Reaction score
- 105,238
That is a whole different discussion.No entity should “have a me too agenda”. What the heck does that even mean?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.That is a whole different discussion.No entity should “have a me too agenda”. What the heck does that even mean?
What exactly is incorrect?
Not a single person would be okay with someone they barely knew sending them pics of their kids and essentially saying ‘I’m coming after you’. Regardless of the reason that’s just a line you don’t cross.
He’s a guy with money and a full legal team and who knows who else and she’s not even suing or filing charges against him but he still felt the need to intimidate her. It was absolutely a strong arm attempt to scare her and maybe have her recant her story.
he uses the word you in the first text. This was not an accidentHe referred to her in the third person. He's dumb enough to have put her on the text chain by accident.
Also, if he has her number, it's not someone 'she barely knows'
Also, if you don't post pictures of your kids on instagram of Facebook or MyFace, they have a 0% chance of posting them anywhere else. It's not like they went and found the kids and took pictures of them.
It wasn't a 'strong arm' attempt, that's an incredible leap in logic.
The rest of what you said was pretty much right on the money.
Klemko shows his bias and agenda by labeling Brown’s texts “menacing”. That’s hyperbole at its finest. Call yourself an opinion columnist/tweeter, not a reporter, Robbie.
foh, clown....
Klemko shows his bias and agenda by labeling Brown’s texts “menacing”. That’s hyperbole at its finest. Call yourself an opinion columnist/tweeter, not a reporter, Robbie.
foh, clown....
I don't care if what he sent was an innocent hello. Why is he in contact with this woman during an investigation?
I don't care if what he sent was an innocent hello. Why is he in contact with this woman during an investigation?
I seriously hope you don't believe what you wrote as Natalie died 7 years before AB was born. Or perhaps, maybe you were trying to out-funny me!I hope this doesn't mean you're suggesting Antonio Brown raped and murdered Natalie Wood... now that's finally an accusation against him I wouldn't buy.
This is not BT. The woman he texted is the painter in the SI article. He basically texted her and said I can’t believe you would say blah, blah,blah. Then later he texted a group chat saying this girl is broke. Hey, here’s a pic of her kids to show everyone how broke this girl is.
He referred to her in the third person. He's dumb enough to have put her on the text chain by accident.
Also, if he has her number, it's not someone 'she barely knows'
Also, if you don't post pictures of your kids on instagram of Facebook or MyFace, they have a 0% chance of them being posted anywhere else. It's not like they went and found the kids and took pictures of them.
It wasn't a 'strong arm' attempt, that's an incredible leap in logic.
The rest of what you said was pretty much right on the money.
This is correct, and honestly, it's enough to void his contract the way it's worded, if that's what they want to do.
I just don't think it's what they want to do.
Seems rather normal that someone would want to say something to the person falsely accusing them of something significant.I don't care if what he sent was an innocent hello. Why is he in contact with this woman during an investigation?
This is ridiculous. He knew exactly what he was doing. And regardless of her putting her kids on SM he had no reason to post them in that group chat. If as you claim he added her by accident then he has to be the dumbest mother****er on the planet. Which isn’t much better in actuality. Sorry I don’t buy it. We all saw how he finessed his way off the Steelers and Raiders teams. AB isn’t brain dead he was just dumb enough to think it would work.
And yes you can have someone’s number you barely know in your phone. They have each other’s number from a job she did. Just cause he didn’t delete it doesn’t mean he’s well acquainted with her. Otherwise why the hell would he need her investigated.
This is just continuing to make excuses for him.
I could see where she could perceive this as 'OMG, these thugs have a picture of my kids and will do harm to them." But she should go to the cops.