Hurry, sign Dansby!

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

At this point, Dansby should be in serious consideration with all this uncertainty. Worst Case Scenario, Cards wind up with 2 soldi ILBs.

 

[CardsFan88]

Never too early to start trashing the alleged victim.

Not me. I sure hope you didn't read that and think I'm bashing her. I'm pointing out possibilities and facts.

The fact is she IS a man-beater. Whether or not that happened here we don't know. But to pretend she doesn't have that past, would be disingenuous. It is a possibility.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Not me. I sure hope you didn't read that and think I'm bashing her. I'm pointing out possibilities and facts.

The fact is she IS a man-beater. Whether or not that happened here we don't know. But to pretend she doesn't have that past, would be disingenuous. It is a possibility.

Your ”pointing out' was hardly fair and balanced given, as you say... "we don't know."

 

[CardsFan88]

Your ”pointing out' was hardly fair and balanced given, as you say... "we don't know."

My 'pointing out' is just that facts. It was fair and balanced as facts are. To you somehow it isn't. That's not on me.

The facts are the facts. Period.

We don't know, which is why I pointed out all sorts of possiblities, because they are...possibilities.

But you were the one says 'never too early to blame the victim'.

The fact is, we don't know WHO the victim is. Just the person who lodged a complaint. Then you insinuate something against me, which I actually find pretty funny, since I was only pointing out all the directions it could go.

Do we want justice or do we just want the appearance of justice?

 

[40yearfan]

If we were able to resign Rhodes, and bring Dansby, back I'd do a backflip!

Well...I'd try to do a backflip...more than likely I'd land on my head, but I think you get the point. LOL

Well, as long as you landed on your head, it wouldn't hurt anything.

 

[GuernseyCard]

My 'pointing out' is just that facts. It was fair and balanced as facts are. To you somehow it isn't. That's not on me.

The facts are the facts. Period.

We don't know, which is why I pointed out all sorts of possiblities, because they are...possibilities.

But you were the one says 'never too early to blame the victim'.

The fact is, we don't know WHO the victim is. Just the person who lodged a complaint.

Where are the facts (arrest report, court proceeding) that support your 'man beater' allegation and the host of assumptions you made subsequent about the person who lodged the complaint?

 

[BigRedRage]

I heard there was actually a wiffleball bat involved.

 

[Redheart]

Was Tiger's wife involved?

 

[CardsFan88]

Where are the facts (arrest report, court proceeding) that support your 'man beater' allegation and the host of assumptions you made subsequent about the person who lodged the complaint?

OMG are you really going there? Are you really trying to litigate this on a message board?

For one as a person commenting on a message board you should realize I don't have access to the court relevant documents. What I have is sufficient evidence for a message board which is the following...

TylerBaldwin @tylerbaldwin
According to source: Accuser in Cards LB Daryl Washington domestic violence case was booked a few years back for attacking a boyfriend

Could this be wrong. Sure, it's possible. But it doesn't look good. Somewhere out there there is an arrest report. On a message board, that is the evidence you have. We're not in a courtroom nor a part of the jury. If the guy is lying or wrong, then that Baldwin guy will look really bad. He's a reporter for a local television station. Which would make such channel look bad. It would also change what we know. But as of now, not in a courtroom, on a message post, it is ok to say she has a history of man-beating. The allegation is backed up by news reporting. To be attacked after that shows your bias. You can attack whether or not it is true. But it has been reported. Reports can be wrong, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and it's on my position's side...this isn't a courtroom.

Regardless of whether the above report is true or not, I'm pointing out POSSIBILITIES that haven't changed. I would point out the SAME possibilities even if that wasn't reported. We just wouldn't know she was a man-beater. I still would put out that a ex-girlfriend was a possible instigator. Because any of these are possibilities.

Bringing up the facts to pose a wide range of possibilities...which if you reread what I said initially is anywhere between him being at fault to her being at fault, showcases that my position is that ANYTHING in that range could of ACTUALLY happened, and then some.

Being attacked for bringing that up is how societal discourse degrades, not elevates. You somehow want to attack the person who tries to frame what was possible, and then label me as bias. Hilarious. Just because I can think level-headed about the situation doesn't make me biased. I want whoever to be guilty of a crime have justice served. But to get to justice, you need to be able to think about all of the possibilities that could have arisen, and try to fit the facts to them like a puzzle.

I want justice served, and an important part of trying to understand who is at fault is understanding if either have past histories of domestic abuse. I haven't see anything reported about DWash battering a women. I have seen stuff reported about his ex-girlfriend battering a man.

The simple facts are, if what was REPORTED is true, then she is a man beater, and that can completely change everything. Most men don't go to police when battered. How would it look if a football player was? Doesn't mean it was, but it would definitely lead to someone who doesn't come forward. It does mean that perhaps she felt she had to come forward before he did, not realizing he never would. Creating a possibility that she was afraid he'd finger her as a perpetrator. As I said there or tons of possibilities, and only one is true.

As I said, when one thinks clearly about the situation, and makes a post on a message board a news report as fact, then attacking that person for keeping ones mind open and elucidating that is wrong. Either way it doesn't change the possibilities, it would only change the likelihood.

As I've said we don't know what happened. Let justice be done. I'm not trying to get him off because he's a Cardinal. Let him get away with it. C'mon. I've seen enough bs in life to know that you never really know what can happen. I've seen enough to know I don't know WHO the victim is. That pointing out ones past is valid. It doesn't mean she DID or DIDN'T. But on a message board, after it's been reported, it shows that the situation is indeed murkier then it lets on.

We'll know more eventually and at no time will my position be biased against justice. Because whatever happened in the past doesn't change what happened here. In the meantime, out of court, it can help frame in absence of complete facts what was possible. That's not bias.

 

[BigRedRage]

not worth it 88

 

[CardsFan88]

not worth it 88

Yeah you're right. I probably wouldn't of cared except it hit a button. Overall who cares, I'm not involved. Let whoever think whatever they want.

 

[GuernseyCard]

OMG are you really going there? Are you really trying to litigate this on a message board?

For one as a person commenting on a message board you should realize I don't have access to the court relevant documents. What I have is sufficient evidence for a message board which is the following...



Could this be wrong. Sure, it's possible. But it doesn't look good. Somewhere out there there is an arrest report. On a message board, that is the evidence you have. We're not in a courtroom nor a part of the jury. If the guy is lying or wrong, then that Baldwin guy will look really bad. He's a reporter for a local television station. Which would make such channel look bad. It would also change what we know. But as of now, not in a courtroom, on a message post, it is ok to say she has a history of man-beating. The allegation is backed up by news reporting. To be attacked after that shows your bias. You can attack whether or not it is true. But it has been reported. Reports can be wrong, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and it's on my position's side...this isn't a courtroom.

Regardless of whether the above report is true or not, I'm pointing out POSSIBILITIES that haven't changed. I would point out the SAME possibilities even if that wasn't reported. We just wouldn't know she was a man-beater. I still would put out that a ex-girlfriend was a possible instigator. Because any of these are possibilities.

Bringing up the facts to pose a wide range of possibilities...which if you reread what I said initially is anywhere between him being at fault to her being at fault, showcases that my position is that ANYTHING in that range could of ACTUALLY happened, and then some.

Being attacked for bringing that up is how societal discourse degrades, not elevates. You somehow want to attack the person who tries to frame what was possible, and then label me as bias. Hilarious. Just because I can think level-headed about the situation doesn't make me biased. I want whoever to be guilty of a crime have justice served. But to get to justice, you need to be able to think about all of the possibilities that could have arisen, and try to fit the facts to them like a puzzle.

I want justice served, and an important part of trying to understand who is at fault is understanding if either have past histories of domestic abuse. I haven't see anything reported about DWash battering a women. I have seen stuff reported about his ex-girlfriend battering a man.

The simple facts are, if what was REPORTED is true, then she is a man beater, and that can completely change everything. Most men don't go to police when battered. How would it look if a football player was? Doesn't mean it was, but it would definitely lead to someone who doesn't come forward. It does mean that perhaps she felt she had to come forward before he did, not realizing he never would. Creating a possibility that she was afraid he'd finger her as a perpetrator. As I said there or tons of possibilities, and only one is true.

As I said, when one thinks clearly about the situation, and makes a post on a message board a news report as fact, then attacking that person for keeping ones mind open and elucidating that is wrong. Either way it doesn't change the possibilities, it would only change the likelihood.

As I've said we don't know what happened. Let justice be done. I'm not trying to get him off because he's a Cardinal. Let him get away with it. C'mon. I've seen enough bs in life to know that you never really know what can happen. I've seen enough to know I don't know WHO the victim is. That pointing out ones past is valid. It doesn't mean she DID or DIDN'T. But on a message board, after it's been reported, it shows that the situation is indeed murkier then it lets on.

We'll know more eventually and at no time will my position be biased against justice. Because whatever happened in the past doesn't change what happened here. In the meantime, out of court, it can help frame in absence of complete facts what was possible. That's not bias.

Don't know about you, but I require a bit more than a "one source" Tweet to bang on and on about a person's character and possible motivation.

Re-read your initial post, particularly the sentences starting with "She" and ask yourself if that constiutes any facts in evidence; anything other than inviting readers to prejudge.

My bias is for fairness and allowing the facts to speak for themselves when we are fully appraised.

You made your point, I made mine.

Cheers... No response necessary.

 

[CardsFan88]

Don't know about you, but I require a bit more than a "one source" Tweet to bang on and on about a person's character and possible motivation.

Re-read your initial post, particularly the sentences starting with "She" and ask yourself if that constiutes any facts in evidence; anything other than inviting readers to prejudge.

My bias is for fairness and allowing the facts to speak for themselves when we are fully appraised.

You made your point, I made mine.

Cheers... No response necessary.

Well I'll respond just to end it because I think I see it now. It's all good man. We're both equally passionate about things I see. We have different methodologies.

I wouldn't say I banged on her but I understand how you might think that (which if you speak American style English, means something completely different, as banged is sexual lol).

Any news report, tweet or not, sets a stage. It may not be true, but it was from the account of a local newsman. It's not about sports reporter 95 percent signing somewhere type tweet frenzy environment. Also mentioning it doesn't mean she isn't the victim, but it merely sets the stage. I'm a person who can both introduce and throw out information as things progress. Thus one tweet can be substantial, but it isn't set in stone.

The 'she' sentences were not isolated. The VERY FIRST one I wrote was
"Dwash could have created an altercation."

That one was all encompassing. The other side with the 'she' was a few situations. But number of situations laid out doesn't make something more likely. I wasn't playing a numbers game. But I can see how you might have arrived at that conclusion. It's just incorrect. One needed to be specified more while the other didn't.

It's not like I was hinting at 1 cause for Dwash vs 3 of his ex and thus it's the ex fault because there are more possibilities. But I also had read some other possibilities on his side, so I felt that side had been made. None of them were said to be facts of evidence. Perhaps you got confused or I poorly laid out structurally my argument. Basically between that first sentence and that list should be noted was a break in thought.

I don't believe looking at all the possibilities means pre-judging. It's like drawing a frame around a picture. Slowly the facts are presented and the painting becomes clear or close to clear. I believe it's okay to create a frame, and still realize the frame could need to be altered. Add some things. Subtract others. As time goes on you keep retesting it all. At this point, my frame includes all of that. I don't see that as being unfair or leading people to pre-judge. Some people are incapable of doing that, but I can.

I am for fairness as well. The facts will speak for themselves at some point. But even then facts don't always speak sufficiently.

Until then we can try to draw a frame around the situation and then fill them in. It's not settled until it's over. But there's nothing wrong with taking it in a step by step process. That's all I was doing and in the end we can get to the truth. My style does find flaws in processes. I've always been one who can separate emotion or desired outcome out from a situation. Though it's not like I'll be watching this case like a hawk. But as I come across more info as the case progresses it will be pushed by the evidence of the case.

We just go about things a bit differently. I like to not just wait for the final facts to tell me. I like to figure it out for myself. Thus where we were in disagreement was my introduction of something (that can be revoked if things change) to create a frame and you felt it premature because the ultimate facts aren't out. So we both want the same thing, just have different methodologies. I'm sure your way works for you, like my way works for me.

I can add and subtract info and it alters things. Even then I understand that we rarely get the full facts about something. We always have to be able to change our viewpoints on anything really. So you could say I live my life with knowledge that little if anything is set in stone. Thus in my eyes, facts, rarely ever come. Most times even facts are merely currently best info. It's complicated.

But Cheers man. Hope I didn't bang on you

 

[GuernseyCard]

Well I'll respond just to end it because I think I see it now. It's all good man. We're both equally passionate about things I see. We have different methodologies.

I wouldn't say I banged on her but I understand how you might think that (which if you speak American style English, means something completely different, as banged is sexual lol).

Any news report, tweet or not, sets a stage. It may not be true, but it was from the account of a local newsman. It's not about sports reporter 95 percent signing somewhere type tweet frenzy environment. Also mentioning it doesn't mean she isn't the victim, but it merely sets the stage. I'm a person who can both introduce and throw out information as things progress. Thus one tweet can be substantial, but it isn't set in stone.

The 'she' sentences were not isolated. The VERY FIRST one I wrote was
"Dwash could have created an altercation."

That one was all encompassing. The other side with the 'she' was a few situations. But number of situations laid out doesn't make something more likely. I wasn't playing a numbers game. But I can see how you might have arrived at that conclusion. It's just incorrect. One needed to be specified more while the other didn't.

It's not like I was hinting at 1 cause for Dwash vs 3 of his ex and thus it's the ex fault because there are more possibilities. But I also had read some other possibilities on his side, so I felt that side had been made. None of them were said to be facts of evidence. Perhaps you got confused or I poorly laid out structurally my argument. Basically between that first sentence and that list should be noted was a break in thought.

I don't believe looking at all the possibilities means pre-judging. It's like drawing a frame around a picture. Slowly the facts are presented and the painting becomes clear or close to clear. I believe it's okay to create a frame, and still realize the frame could need to be altered. Add some things. Subtract others. As time goes on you keep retesting it all. At this point, my frame includes all of that. I don't see that as being unfair or leading people to pre-judge. Some people are incapable of doing that, but I can.

I am for fairness as well. The facts will speak for themselves at some point. But even then facts don't always speak sufficiently.

Until then we can try to draw a frame around the situation and then fill them in. It's not settled until it's over. But there's nothing wrong with taking it in a step by step process. That's all I was doing and in the end we can get to the truth. My style does find flaws in processes. I've always been one who can separate emotion or desired outcome out from a situation. Though it's not like I'll be watching this case like a hawk. But as I come across more info as the case progresses it will be pushed by the evidence of the case.

We just go about things a bit differently. I like to not just wait for the final facts to tell me. I like to figure it out for myself. Thus where we were in disagreement was my introduction of something (that can be revoked if things change) to create a frame and you felt it premature because the ultimate facts aren't out. So we both want the same thing, just have different methodologies. I'm sure your way works for you, like my way works for me.

I can add and subtract info and it alters things. Even then I understand that we rarely get the full facts about something. We always have to be able to change our viewpoints on anything really. So you could say I live my life with knowledge that little if anything is set in stone. Thus in my eyes, facts, rarely ever come. Most times even facts are merely currently best info. It's complicated.

But Cheers man. Hope I didn't bang on you

All's fine, mate.

 

[vinnymac]

Kevin Minter will be replacing D-Wash until D-Wash gets back from suspension. When the Cardinals find out what the facts are, then the Cardinals will make a move. They will sign someone like Paris Lenon or go with a young guy you never heard of.

 

[FORKTUNG]

On March 20, the Bears announced that Urlacher will not return in 2013 after the two sides failed to reach an agreement on a new contract.[58] In 182 appearances with Chicago, Urlacher started nearly all of them, while recording a team-record 1,779 tackles, 41.5 sacks, 22 interceptions, 11 fumbles forced and 16 fumble recoveries

 

[PDXChris]

On March 20, the Bears announced that Urlacher will not return in 2013 after the two sides failed to reach an agreement on a new contract.[58] In 182 appearances with Chicago, Urlacher started nearly all of them, while recording a team-record 1,779 tackles, 41.5 sacks, 22 interceptions, 11 fumbles forced and 16 fumble recoveries

You do not let a guy like Brian Urlacher go unless he is done.

He is .......

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[FORKTUNG]

Looks like we signed Jasper Brinkley

http://www.nfl.com/player/jasperbrinkley/79840/profile

 

[GuernseyCard]

Looks like we signed Jasper Brinkley

http://www.nfl.com/player/jasperbrinkley/79840/profile

Yes. A couple of months ago.

 

[BigRedRage]

Looks like we signed Jasper Brinkley

http://www.nfl.com/player/jasperbrinkley/79840/profile

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

 

[Azlen]

Looks like Dansby is coming in for a visit tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/mikejurecki/status/331884126191902720

 

[Cheesebeef]

Looks like Dansby is coming in for a visit tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/mikejurecki/status/331884126191902720

This makes a lot of sense if true.

 

[PDXChris]

Looks like Dansby is coming in for a visit tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/mikejurecki/status/331884126191902720

WOW, that is great news. They better make this happen.

 

[Goldfield]

No brainer

 

[Dayman]

Bring back the Dirty Bird!