This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Question, have you ever seen or even heard of an NDA for a legal massage?
Yes, again - I am aware of that. you keep saying stuff that’s entirely obvious, yet continue to miss the point.
I’ve heard of NDA’s for all sorts of activities. I have an NDA with my kitchen over my recipes, for example.
) 
I feel like I’m saying the same thing over and over so I’ll make this my last post on it.
I have done personal injury stuff in the past.
Has that been established?
I’m sure there have been some cases where emotions may have creeped into a judge’s decision before - but for the most part they really aren’t “humans” once they are up there on the bench, they’re more just legal robots. Every decision should be (and usually is) based strictly on the facts (as presented) and the law.
No, because none these civil cases have gone to trial. Watson settled with 20 women and Houston also now settled. The Texans made the decision that settling was the best course of action - read into that what you may.
Pretty sure you nailed it.
I’m on the same train. I get that the Texans might be more likely to settle quick for a variety of reasons. But the numbers of complainants seem odd.
Purely hypothetical - if Watson had a bad shoulder or chronic lower back issues which the massage helped, he would have reason to get the NDA. He wasn’t being traded at the time so the only doctors he would have seen would be the Texans or his own. Assuming anything that ailed him would be fixed by the time he would be dealt. Of course, that situation would make it all the more likely to only use ONE massage therapist.
so in your world, judges must act like humans and must let their bias impact their decisions.Hot Sauce Guy said:Yes, again - I am aware of that. you keep saying stuff that’s entirely obvious, yet continue to miss the point.
It’s truly remarkable that you believe judges are computer-brained robots who never stray afoul of their absolutist mandates when in fact it happens all the time.
But it’s a point not worth arguing. One day I’d love to live in your Pollyanna world where no one jaywalks, black folks don’t fear getting pulled over, and judges brush their very teeth by the letter of the law.
Oh what a world that would be.
Any reason IYO why this might be the case?Dr. Octopus said:I thought at one point there was basically a zero percent chance that he would not be suspended at all - I’m not quite so sure about it now since most of the plaintiffs didn’t seem to cooperate in the NFL’s investigation.
I’ll still stick with 6-8 games for @TheWinz
the NFL asked hard questions, on the record?
I really don’t know. Maybe because they were involved in the civil litigation and didn’t want to say anything to an investigator that could hurt them in those cases? They weren’t under any obligation with the NFL.
Just read Watson said he will sue the NFL if he's suspended for the season.
Some people are so litigiousJust read Watson said he will sue the NFL if he's suspended for the season.
.
Just read Watson said he will sue the NFL if he's suspended for the season.
I think this is quite a leap and very difficult to prove. As many have outlined there are many legitimate reasons to have someone sign an NDA and on the surface wouldn't lead to your conclusion. Now there may be other reasons (like if Watson gave specifics as to why he wanted the NDA's that showed illegal activity) that could have led to knowledge of the activities but the act itself of providing an NDA is not nefarious.
If this is the case, I don't see how retroactively applying Watson's suspension isn't part of a settlement which could then result in a fine based on his game check equation from 2021 v 2022.
Watson wasn't suspended last season. He did not want to play last season and the Texans were happy to oblige him.
I do not see a "retroactive" suspension as a possibility. It doesn't even make sense imo.
and 4 hours before that tweet, Sean Allen Hill (still no idea who he is) tweeted this:
If he gets suspended for 2022 games, the contract as the Browns have structured it, means hypothetically speaking say 8 games, he loses less than $500K.
agreed
You mean if Watson claims that the PCP isn't being applied in an even manner when it comes to old white owners/front office executives vs young black QB's. That narrative that you keep on insisting doesn't exist, but all it takes is a jilted black QB who feels done wrong by the NFL's version of justice to stir the pot of racial discrimination. I mean, why do you think he would sue.
I didn’t claim that narrative didn’t exist.
Explained by one of the following, perhaps more:
You tell me if you think Watson thinks he's felt racism as a black QB...
Of course Watson has a certain perspective. We don’t need to buy into it. ETA: there’s no denying that racism has been and continues to be a problem. It just isn’t the key factor here.
of course this is correct. They should *both* be punished for their actions.
of course this is correct. They should *both* be punished for their actions.
Whataboutism doesn’t excuse Watson’s actions. 1 murderer doesn’t get a get out of jail free card because another murderer got away with his. And that’s using an apples to apples comparison.
Comparing Kraft to Watson is like saying “well the cops didn’t give that jaywalker a ticket, so Ruggs vehicular manslaughter charge should be dismissed! It’s only because Ruggs is black that he’s in jail!”
Comparing Kraft to Watson is obvious false equivalence and it’s absurd that 1 person continues to push that agenda. It was a fallacious argument the 1st time it was offered, and it has become no more effective in the ~37 times it’s been repeated.
