(11-28-2013 11:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The evidence even seems to prove this was just consensual sex.

So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

(11-29-2013 01:18 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  I saw that as well. I don't think the Slate author is a big football fan. But she was fair in saying:
"Whether schools should punish athletes who have been accused but not convicted—or in Winston’s case, even charged—is a hard call"

I don't think it's fair.

They should suspend them? Or never suspend them? Texas sent two players home from the Alamo Bowl after they were accused of rape last year (one of doing, one of watching) and didn't reinstate them until the DA decided not to charge them. Now they were also violating curfew the night before the bowl game, so they violated team rules, which Winston didn't. It seemed the right thing to do to most everyone. One player was injured, but the other was the ONLY backup QB. Texas had to prepare their punter, who hadn't taken a snap since HS, in case the starter got injured. And the starter had been knocked out of the game only a couple of games before.

There are cases where they should remove them from the playing field. Then there are cases that are not so clear. You have to look at the facts and circumstances.

(11-29-2013 06:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The evidence even seems to prove this was just consensual sex.

So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

(11-29-2013 09:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 06:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The evidence even seems to prove this was just consensual sex.

So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

(11-29-2013 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 06:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The evidence even seems to prove this was just consensual sex.

So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

(11-29-2013 12:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 06:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-28-2013 11:57 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The evidence even seems to prove this was just consensual sex.

So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

(11-29-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 01:18 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  I saw that as well. I don't think the Slate author is a big football fan. But she was fair in saying:
"Whether schools should punish athletes who have been accused but not convicted—or in Winston’s case, even charged—is a hard call"

I don't think it's fair.

They should suspend them? Or never suspend them?

They shouldn't be auto-suspended for being accused of something that they're not charged with. That goes for all citizens and receiving any type of "punishment" in this type of situation. I don't think there's anything out of line with that thinking. That seems like the most reasonable approach.

Actually being charged is a different story, even if they're later acquitted.

(11-29-2013 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 06:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  So you've reviewed all the evidence the State's Attorney's Office has?

Who are you, the State's Attorney?

You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

You must have realized what an idiot you were for calling me an ACC supporter huh?

(11-29-2013 03:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 01:18 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  I saw that as well. I don't think the Slate author is a big football fan. But she was fair in saying:
"Whether schools should punish athletes who have been accused but not convicted—or in Winston’s case, even charged—is a hard call"

I don't think it's fair.

They should suspend them? Or never suspend them?

They shouldn't be auto-suspended for being accused of something that they're not charged with. That goes for all citizens and receiving any type of "punishment" in this type of situation. I don't think there's anything out of line with that thinking. That seems like the most reasonable approach.

Actually being charged is a different story, even if they're later acquitted.

Would you want to be suspended from your job without pay for a charge that you might have done by the legal system or by the media.
I have seen first hand what a he said, she said situation could do even though it was only an auto accident situation. I may be biased, but, but to call him a bad clown without knowing all the facts, is just internet fodder.

(11-29-2013 05:13 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 01:18 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  I saw that as well. I don't think the Slate author is a big football fan. But she was fair in saying:
"Whether schools should punish athletes who have been accused but not convicted—or in Winston’s case, even charged—is a hard call"

I don't think it's fair.

They should suspend them? Or never suspend them?

They shouldn't be auto-suspended for being accused of something that they're not charged with. That goes for all citizens and receiving any type of "punishment" in this type of situation. I don't think there's anything out of line with that thinking. That seems like the most reasonable approach.

Actually being charged is a different story, even if they're later acquitted.

Would you want to be suspended from your job without pay for a charge that you might have done by the legal system or by the media.
I have seen first hand what a he said, she said situation could do even though it was only an auto accident situation. I may be biased, but, but to call him a bad clown without knowing all the facts, is just internet fodder.

Perhaps you misread what I said or meant to reply to someone else? Nobody, athlete or not, should be punished for being accused of a crime in which they have never been charged.

(11-29-2013 10:49 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 05:13 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 01:18 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't think it's fair.

They should suspend them? Or never suspend them?

They shouldn't be auto-suspended for being accused of something that they're not charged with. That goes for all citizens and receiving any type of "punishment" in this type of situation. I don't think there's anything out of line with that thinking. That seems like the most reasonable approach.

Actually being charged is a different story, even if they're later acquitted.

Would you want to be suspended from your job without pay for a charge that you might have done by the legal system or by the media.
I have seen first hand what a he said, she said situation could do even though it was only an auto accident situation. I may be biased, but, but to call him a bad clown without knowing all the facts, is just internet fodder.

Perhaps you misread what I said or meant to reply to someone else? Nobody, athlete or not, should be punished for being accused of a crime in which they have never been charged.

You are right. I need to get a better set of glasses or take a refresher course in reading.

Don't worry about it. I have a feeling the OP will be on an even bigger b*tch-fit rampage now that they lost to you guys last night.

(11-29-2013 04:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 09:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You seem to be pretty sure of the opposite opinion, are you the State's Attorney?
See, wasn't such a smart comment by you at all. The key to being a smart ass is to actually say something smart.

Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

You must have realized what an idiot you were for calling me an ACC supporter huh?

No, i just focused on what is important in this thread and who you support isn't. But fwiw, if you look like an ACC duck and quack like one then you ARE one. And you are.

(11-30-2013 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 04:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 10:55 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, all I did was show how baseless your claim about the evidence pointing to consensual sex was. It's been your modus in these threads - spout pro-Jameis, pro-FSU, pro-ACC opinions while claiming they are based on "facts", facts that turn out to be non-existent.

Also, I've never said the evidence seems to prove "the opposite" that it was rape, either.

So once again, you managed to be wrong twice within the span of a single sentence.

Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

You must have realized what an idiot you were for calling me an ACC supporter huh?

No, i just focused on what is important in this thread and who you support isn't. But fwiw, if you look like an ACC duck and quack like one then you ARE one. And you are.

You focused on what is important by saying that a Big Ten supporter that quite a few ACC fanboy's despise is an ACC fanboy himself?

You are an idiot and a liar.

The fact that you think that only an ACC fan would feel the way I do just goes to show that you are a slave to your emotions. A woman cries foul and immediately in your mind the man is at fault. That is how simple you are, and gullible.

Nothing is important in this thread. This discussion servers no purpose...except to show everyone how much of an idiot you are to twice over try to misrepresent me as some kind of "ACC guy" in order to win an internet argument over whether or not Winston is guilty? I don't even know what exactly you are arguing, since it is so important why don't you tell us.

Is Winston guilty?

(11-30-2013 03:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 04:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 12:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Only one of us has a modus operandi in this thread. It is you. Claiming I am pro jameis? pro fsu? pro ACC? You cant be that simple minded, can you?

... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

You must have realized what an idiot you were for calling me an ACC supporter huh?

No, i just focused on what is important in this thread and who you support isn't. But fwiw, if you look like an ACC duck and quack like one then you ARE one. And you are.

You focused on what is important by saying that a Big Ten supporter that quite a few ACC fanboy's despise is an ACC fanboy himself?

You are an idiot and a liar.

The fact that you think that only an ACC fan would feel the way I do just goes to show that you are a slave to your emotions. A woman cries foul and immediately in your mind the man is at fault.

You probably aren't a liar, just stupid. Time and again I've had to correct you about what the facts of the case are, and about what I have said. In this case, i have NEVER said that i believe Winston is guilty of anything.

Call yourself a B1G fan if you want, but in this thread you've been the worst ACC fanboy and apologist. The transcript shows it.

(11-30-2013 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 03:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 01:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 04:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-29-2013 03:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:   ... what on earth was that nonsense about the evidence seeming to prove consensual sex?

You must have realized what an idiot you were for calling me an ACC supporter huh?

No, i just focused on what is important in this thread and who you support isn't. But fwiw, if you look like an ACC duck and quack like one then you ARE one. And you are.

You focused on what is important by saying that a Big Ten supporter that quite a few ACC fanboy's despise is an ACC fanboy himself?

You are an idiot and a liar.

The fact that you think that only an ACC fan would feel the way I do just goes to show that you are a slave to your emotions. A woman cries foul and immediately in your mind the man is at fault.

You probably aren't a liar, just stupid. Time and again I've had to correct you about what the facts of the case are, and about what I have said. In this case, i have NEVER said that i believe Winston is guilty of anything.

Call yourself a B1G fan if you want, but in this thread you've been the worst ACC fanboy and apologist. The transcript shows it.

No, I have just had my own opinion. You have been the one who has lied and misrepresented it for some reason. I guess because you take this **** way too seriously. The transcript is much larger than just this thread when it comes to whom I support.

You havn't corrected ****. I just don't care enough to put in the effort to show where I have gotten the information that I have gotten. People like you do not have rational conversations with other people. You think you are winning something here so you argue and lie and make up whatever you can in that infantile mind of yours. You calling me an ACC homer just proves it. That is why I focused on that because that should show to everyone here what kind of a nut you are to actually try to argue that I am an ACC homer. Of all the posters here...me...an ACC guy. Go ask some of the ACC regulars just how pro-ACC I am.

That's it, I am done with this nutjob.

At the very least, Winston's a good clown at putting up 300+ yards and 3 td on one of the top passing defenses in the nation.