Yes it was trolling but with a purpose.
It is one thing to have an informative discussion and completely another to attempt to discredit an elite poster while doing so.
I've enjoyed reading Quantum's posts as well as posts from many other obviously well educated and informed members.
If you want to bring your "sister in law" into the discussion I'll raise you family and friends whom are lawyers, doctors, DA's, Judges etc.. I communicate with a few of them weekly and enjoy the occasional thanksgiving in their home or them at mine. Funny thing is that I'm the least educated out the bunch of them as I'm just a simple wrench turning, multimeter carrying technician but I can tell you that from their perspective (and what history has proven) the information posted by Quantum and many others has been accurate and on point.
Interesting that you accuse Quantum of regurgitating information while you yourself are simply regurgitating information you've acquired from your "sister in law" or Steph. Is that not Trolling? Oh wait. I know. Your regurgitation is better than theirs, right?
Unfortunately you did show promise of being another good poster in this forum but for some reason headed down the road of discrediting or berating others without any understandable reasoning for doing so.
Now I question the validity of your sources. Does Rusty even have a "sister in law" let alone one that is an accomplished attorney? I don't know. People who wish to hog the spotlight often create fictitious labels or credits to ensure the "me, myself and I" light shines brightly on them.
It doesn't matter in the end I guess. I'll stick with Quantum and his occasional X as well as the many other posters who have posted their point of views without berating others. Btw, X simply means "I disagree" and not I think I'm better than you.
I agree, but I just don't think the Lester Munson school of technical jargon trumps what will likely happen at this point, not that any of us knows.
How did I "berate" anyone, by the way? Very strange and overly sensitive.
And no, my regurgitation is not better than anyone's. I am just saying all that stuff doesn't really matter at this point.
Ted Olson has taken this on...That's a tell right there. This is either going back En Banc or it's going to get kicked up to the SC where Olson has some standing. Regardless, Goodell doesn't want to testify in any capacity or have Ginsburg embarrass him if at the SC level.
There is a reason why Goodell appealed on the basis of his powers and not how iron clad the Wells Report was. So, IMO, we're just past all of that legal mumbo jumbo after the hiring of Olson. I don't thik he takes this on without thinking he has a good chance of winning this.
Either way, I like Brady's chances. I don't put a lot of stock in technical garbage at this point, mainly because of how unique this is.
People keep referencing Garvey's case, where there was no proof of collusion. How is this not collusion with Goodell and Wells, at some level? Who knows what else the Pats have on Goodell/Wells with some other email exchanges, too. We've only seen probably a very small amount.
Meanwhile, Goodell has his hand caught in the cookie jar and still thinks he can get away with this because of a CBA?
Nowhere in the CBA does it say "the commissioner can frame a player or team even without evidence just because his all powerful"...It doesn't say that.
It's still the United States of America here, whether the Lester Munson mouthpiece types don't get that yet or not. That's what lawyers get paid to do, or at least some of them. Muddy the waters, confuse, deflect and hope no one knows what anything means.
We all know what Goodell did. He falsified a supposed "independent" report, which could lead to all kinds of charges against him down the line.
