C'mon, you don't think Martin has some sissy in him? You think he handled this well?
So you either get in a physical altercation or you're a sissy?
Wooooo dude....you have to read my posts. I said "I'm not saying throw down with the maniac..."I mean none of us know how Martin tried to handle this previously, but start at standing up for yourself and telling the big dope "hey I'm here to play football, leave me out of your bull####". Or, if you're so terrified of the guy being dangerous like some others are suggesting (which I think is ridiculous), how about knocking on your coaches door, or general managers door?
If the guys first defense was to run home to mommy and daddy, then I don't care what any of you think, imo he's a sissy. A sissy that I do feel bad for, but a sissy nonetheless.
do you know he didn't go to the coaches... is the first instinct that martin is guilty until proven innocent, and sort the facts out later?
I'm just going off what I've seen and heard and read.
understood.impotant aspects of the case have only broken In the last 12 hours.
details are still emerging.
does it seem unreasonable to wait for more information before passing judgement on and name calling martin?
This doesn't go both ways?
Others are being irresponsible for not calling him a sissy when we don't know what happened?is that your point?
No. Incognito and Pouncey getting destroyed in here you're ok with?For the record I'm all for it. I have no problems name calling everyone involved at this point.
this was the post i was thinking of, early on, in which you seemed to imply being hypocritical...
did i misinterpret this?
all i said, AT THIS POINT, was maybe wait for more information to come in before impugning martin's character, and drawing the hard conclusion he handled it like a wussy...
i wasn't using loaded, disrespectful terms like bending, twisting...
after somebody first went on a rant about fake indignation, i did use the term self-righteous...
and you chimed in (paraphrasing)... "yeah, you are, too!" again, implying being hypocritical...
not all over the place. on point.
the difference is, i didn't accuse the poster of being fake, and question their very ability to offer a valid opinion at a fundamental level...
if he said fake and i replied by saying he is fake.. that would be hypocritical.
in several instances, you have said incognito sounds like a bad guy...
in at least one earlier exchange, i said something along those lines (affirming i think incognito sounds like a bad guy), not talking about martin at all, and you again responded with a... "well, obviously your mind is made up!" you said he was a bad guy... i echoed that sentiment (possibly in exchange with somebody else before your response)... but my mind was made up...
when in one of the first exchanges we had, i never said martin is categorically innocent and couldn't possibly be wrong... even if unintentional, that is a misrepresentation of my position... while i may think some people were wrongly impugning martin's character and seemed to be crucifying him as wussy prematurely (your stance was before more info came out from locker room, though even that may miss the mark about racism in some cases), that is not the same as my being unable to later, with more information, state that maybe he does share some culpability...
if you look at your first sentence in last of the nested series of exchange quotes above...
you take me to task for being OK that incognito is being "destroyed" in the thread...
but as you have said, you have consistently, from the beginning, been careful to note incognito is a bad guy...
were you "destroying" incognito? was that an instance of what you are complaining that i shouldn't have allowed...
this is the kind of thing i mean by being inconsistent... please note... not fake, bent, twisted... but inconsistent... and seemingly wrong, to take somebody to task for allowing him to be trashed... than trashing him?
in the last sentence of the above quotes, you convey the determination to name call martin (you have been consistent and true to your word here) because others are doing to it to incognito (neglecting to mention you have done it to incognito)... if others don't name call martin, they have already made up their minds, they are bent and twisted... you can't consider the possibility that they may have some real questions and concerns about organizational pathologies such as institutional bullying.*
* psychology/sociology experiments like the milgram experiment and stanford (or berkeley?) "guard/prisoner" experiments are relevant to the issue of how individuals in group settings might do crazy, even evil things they would not do as individuals, not in groups.