Unbelievable! Mike & Mike are still talking about Matt Walsh

[blackglass3]

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

It would have come up as **** **** **** **** **** anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[shmessy]

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

I know. Don't worry, he's being warned and will be on a very short leash.

 

[FootballFanetic]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

 

[PatriotsReign]

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 are such a pompous...never mind! You may be a lawer, but I'm PatriotsReign and that trumps being a lawyer every time!

 

[blackglass3]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

Attacked you? Good God, man. Maybe you need the same operation Mike Lupica does.

 

[blackglass3]

You are such a pompous...never mind! You may be a lawer, but I'm PatriotsReign and that trumps being a lawyer every time!

Yeah, and us astronauts don't like lawyers.

 

[Kontradiction]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

Atonement sucked. And if I see you stomping on my lillies again, I'm going to take action. I worked day and night on that garden and it's my pride and joy. Oh, and don't let me catch you around my daughter again.

 

[blackglass3]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

While we're at it...if this is true, than why are you still here?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Yeah, and us astronauts don't like lawyers.

What FootballFanetic doesn't realize or refuses to accept is that NOTHING is going to happen to coach Belichik. Nothing will come of the Walsh lie...and nothing will change.

No matter how much the Fanetic wishes with all his mighty lawyer strength, this is going to pass without a wimper. He really needs to just swallow that in one gulp without chewing.

 

[shmessy]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

1) That is NOT what FootballFanetic, Esquire wrote earlier. You called for complete legal indemnity from the Patriots. I repeat: Show me ONE instance in modern U.S. history of that EVER happening.

I'm waiting.

2) Many of us WANT to hear what Matt Walsh has to say. We want to hear the truth, no matter where it may lead. However, you are proposing allowing him to make up anything he wants with no legal responsibility whatsoever. Sorry, Counselor, but please tell us which Law School mailed you your diploma?

3) Most of us DO want the truth, don't you also? What truth can you hang your hat on if this person (with his personal history) gets 100% legal indemnification against anything he could make up.......Hell, even Jose Canseco didn't get THAT.....and he still got his story out - - Ya know why? Because, no matter what a scumbag he was, he HAD the truth.

 

[BSR]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

As I have stated before *you* don't need to know anything. If the NFL is halfway intelligent they will not negotiate an agreement that will allow Walsh to talk to anyone but them, for at least a significant period of time. There is many senarios were this whole issue is declared closed by the NFL and brushed under the rug.

 

[blackglass3]

That is NOT what FootballFanetic, Esquire wrote earlier. You called for complete legal indemnity from the Patriots. I repeat: Show me ONE instance in modern U.S. history of that EVER happening.

I'm waiting.

He's too busy lawyering to answer us. (and by lawyering, I mean looking through Grisham novels for big words)

Now if you will excuse me, I have to eat my lunch of Freeze Dried Ice Cream and Tang.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

this is laughable. the patriots are gonna destroy an asst. golf pros life in hawaii ? they're dragging his name thru the mud ? he's dragged himself thru the mud with his taping of his bosses conversations and lying on his resume.

 

[shmessy]

While we're at it...if this is true, than why are you still here?

That's pretty rich!

Looks like FootballFanetic (sic) has a pretty strong hold on reality.

 

[shmessy]

He's too busy lawyering to answer us. (and by lawyering, I mean looking through Grisham novels for big words)

Now if you will excuse me, I have to eat my lunch of Freeze Dried Ice Cream and Tang.

Godspeed, Blackglass.

 

[Rob0729]

I answered the question put to me, but don't have all day to argue with folks whose minds aren't open on this subject and won't change. Before you accuse me of the same, read what I first wrote--before judging what's going on here we need to know what Matt Walsh claims to know and then and only then determine how much weight to give it in terms of whether it's actually true or not. That's a truism, folks, yet people here will argue that until the cows come home. If you want the Spygate cloud over your franchise to go away that has to happen, full end stop. Otherwise you will be subject to sniping on this topic for years. What are you all so afraid of? That it might be true what he's claiming? Doesn't the rest of the League deserve to find that out? If what Walsh says is "incredible", then the Pats and the League have every right to put on a defense in the public arena (which they've already started), but the imbalance of power here is the reason for the impasse as a legal matter. They can destroy this man's life, make no mistake about it, whether he tells the truth or not.

It may sound odd to many of the "True Believers" who've attacked me, but even when I'm a fan of a team, I try to look at things objectively. Try it sometime, you might like it.

But maybe his life deserves to be destroyed. Well, maybe not destroyed, but maybe he asked for any negative information that is spread out about him.

If you are truly a lawyer, you know that the Pats wouldn't say several times that Matt Walsh illegal recorded conversations between him and Scott Pioli unless they had some proof to back it up. Accusing someone of a felony without any proof is a slam dunk defamation case in the waiting. That is why most companies will not give out any employment information other than dates of employment about any former employee.

Since Pioli, Kraft, and Belichick are all bright, detail oriented people and have worked closely with their lawyers about the entire Matt Walsh situation, you gotta believe the lawyers cleared what Pioli and others have said about Walsh secretly audiotaping conversations and that the Pats would prevail in a defamation case against them on this matter.

Also, the fact that the Walsh camp hasn't addressed this issue other than a single denial also makes me believe it is true. If someone accused me to the press that I committed a felony, I would have made a stronger denial and sought legal actions already.

 

[FootballFanetic]

That's pretty rich!

Looks like FootballFanetic (sic) has a pretty strong hold on reality.

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.

 

[shmessy]

But maybe his life deserves to be destroyed. Well, maybe not destroyed, but maybe he asked for any negative information that is spread out about him.

If you are truly a lawyer, you know that the Pats wouldn't say several times that Matt Walsh illegal recorded conversations between him and Scott Pioli unless they had some proof to back it up. Accusing someone of a felony without any proof is a slam dunk defamation case in the waiting. That is why most companies will not give out any employment information other than dates of employment about any former employee.

Since Pioli, Kraft, and Belichick are all bright, detail oriented people and have worked closely with their lawyers about the entire Matt Walsh situation, you gotta believe the lawyers cleared what Pioli and others have said about Walsh secretly audiotaping conversations and that the Pats would prevail in a defamation case against them on this matter.

Also, the fact that the Walsh camp hasn't addressed this issue other than a single denial also makes me believe it is true. If someone accused me to the press that I committed a felony, I would have made a stronger denial and sought legal actions already.

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.

 

[shmessy]

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.

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.

 

[shmessy]

BTW, Counselor, still waiting on ANY case of legal precedence for what your are advocating the Patriots to relinquish vis a vis their legal rights.