KingGibbs Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Washington cuts LaVar Arrington. No big surprise. But word around the league for weeks has been if a deal isn't done, the 'Skins will have a record number of minimum-salary players and maybe even trade most of their 2006 draft picks for picks in the 2007 draft, when owner Dan Snyder could use the lack of a salary cap to pay players exorbitant salaries he just can't pay right now. Translation. I'm Peter King and I hope to God that there is no new CBA so I can stick it to the millions of 'skins fans especially that guy KingGibbs on Extremeskins.com who wishes death on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 this is like the local gossip stirring up trouble, then saying "but you didn't hear it from me" Spin it anyway you want, hide behind the bogus "I think, I think" he is flat out accusing the Skins of cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 have to agree with Bubba here: there is a ton of white noise out there right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 If an "opinion Piece" showed up in your local paper stating that you were a sexual predator, would you still feel the same? Well first of all, if you are trying to relate this to the King article, it would be: If an "opinion Piece" showed up in your local paper saying it was possible that you were a sexual predator because of certain facts from the past about you, would you still feel the same? Yes I would. I'm pretty sure it's already been done with Michael Jackson. He's never *actually* been proven to be a sexual predator, but based on facts about his life (likes hanging around children a little too much, etc.) its not that much of a stretch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well first of all, if you are trying to relate this to the King article, it would be:If an "opinion Piece" showed up in your local paper saying it was possible that you were a sexual predator because of certain facts from the past about you, would you still feel the same? Yes I would. I'm pretty sure it's already been done with Michael Jackson. He's never *actually* been proven to be a sexual predator, but based on facts about his life (likes hanging around children a little too much, etc.) its not that much of a stretch... Please name the specific illegal actions performed by the Skins in the last decade that supposidly set this whole precedent that you are leaning on. There are none bud. Please don't try to spin this as "Lavar was angry over the $6.5 M fiasco that his agents f&^%ed up". It's one thing to speculate based on observable hypothesis, it's totally another to portray correlation when there is no relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoeRedskins Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 once again, why do you people bother reading anything Peter King writes. It will just confuse and upset you even more. Ignore him, and like a child, he will get bored and eventually go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 uh...isn't that where an opinion comes from? Don't you 'make up' your mind on something when you form an opinion? No, I wasn't talking about "making up his mind". I was talking about making up a claim that multiple front offices are skeptical of a deal, that's already approved, without proof. Who is skeptical of it? That's kind of important, because if no one is, he is pretty much accusing the Skins of cheating, in an "underhanded" way. why is it such a stretch and random, out of left field speculation to think something underhanded went down to get this done? Because there is no precedent under Snyder's tenure for this. And there IS precedent of Peter King falsely accusing Snyder of breaking the rules in the past. See his claims about us tampering with Lawyer Milloy (it was either him or Lenny P). Believe any conspiracy you want, this is nothing more than libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 No, I wasn't talking about "making up his mind". I was talking about making up a claim that multiple front offices are skeptical of a deal, that's already approved, without proof. Who is skeptical of it? That's kind of important, because if no one is, he is pretty much accusing the Skins of cheating, in an "underhanded" way.Because there is no precedent under Snyder's tenure for this. And there IS precedent of Peter King falsely accusing Snyder of breaking the rules in the past. See his claims about us tampering with Lawyer Milloy. Believe any conspiracy you want, this is nothing more than libel, and is becoming par for the course with King. Great Post!! Methinks ElSpaniard is lazy in his trolling practices. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanxxvi Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Is it wrong to wish death on someone? no, just as long as you're not wishing it in the presence of a hitman and a briefcase of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 No, I wasn't talking about "making up his mind". I was talking about making up a claim that multiple front offices are skeptical of a deal, that's already approved, without proof. Who is skeptical of it? That's kind of important, because if no one is, he is pretty much accusing the Skins of cheating, in an "underhanded" way. he doesn't say anywhere in the article that front offices are skeptical of the deal. He says they are skeptical in their trust in the salary cap. Did you read the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Great Post!! Methinks ElSpaniard is lazy in his trolling practices. :applause: so now I'm a troll because I don't agree with you? Methinks you are being lazy in your definition of a troll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 You'd think with all the time KIng spens sitting on his buut getting fatter and fatter, that he could do a little research. Then again, little isn't in this guys vocabulary. With all the other stuff going on he clearly targets the Skins and accuses them of cheating. What a fat piece of crap. I couldn't stand his picture before (he reminds me of rocky dennis w/o the good looks) but now I think I feel actual chunks hitting the back of my teeth. What a dingus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 so now I'm a troll because I don't agree with you? Methinks you are being lazy in your definition of a troll... Well, Lets see here. Hmmm. A Saints fan residing in Rochester Ny endlessly supporting the "Bear false witness" statements of a long term Redskins Hater. nahhhhhh that couldnt be even the "lazy" man's definition of troll. could it? :laugh: You may want to brush up on your troll skills before you piss with the big dogs here newbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 he doesn't say anywhere in the article that front offices are skeptical of the deal. He says they are skeptical in their trust in the salary cap. Did you read the article? No one is skeptical of the salary cap, otherwise why is everyone trying so hard to extend it? These front offices, he claims, are skeptical of the deal, and that it works within the cap in the Skins favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Well, Lets see here.Hmmm. A Saints fan residing in Rochester Ny endlessly supporting the "Bear false witness" statements of a long term Redskins Hater. nahhhhhh that couldnt be even the "lazy" man's definition of troll. could it? :laugh: You may want to brush up on your troll skills before you piss with the big dogs here newbie. While you're delving into my profile and calling me a newbie, you may want to notice that I've been a member over a year, and you've only been here 7 months longer than me. I'm supporting Peter King not because I am trying to cause trouble but because I am sick of people always assuming he's out to get the Redskins. Everyone is quick to forget what good he says about the skins, and always tries to find negatives in even the most mild, factual statements about Snyder, et al. All he said is this is something the league might want to look into, and people here are saying he is 'accusing the skins of cheating' and that Snyder should sue King. It's rediculous. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 No one is skeptical of the salary cap, otherwise why is everyone trying so hard to extend it? These front offices, he claims, are skeptical of the deal, and that it works within the cap in the Skins favor. One more time. That is not what is in the article. Why is this so hard? From his MMQB column -- 2. I think just for the sake of insuring trust in the salary cap from some skeptical front offices, the league needs to make sure LaVar Arrington is really going to forego the $4 million in guaranteed money he gave back to Washington to get his freedom now. Not saying it didn't happen, but I am saying with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal, the league needs to double-check that the accounting of this is clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 here's your basis in fact:'...with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal...' It's a fact that the Redskins have money to spend, and will spend any amount of money to better the team. It's also a fact that the 'skins and Arrington have squabbled over money in the past. -------- why is it such a stretch and random, out of left field speculation to think something underhanded went down to get this done? Then he's got a lot of speculating to do, because I guarantee you there are a million different situations each year where teams COULD benefit from doing something against the rules. Most people would ignore those unless there was some actual indication that said activities took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 While you're delving into my profile and calling me a newbie, you may want to notice that I've been a member over a year, and you've only been here 7 months longer than me. I'm supporting Peter King not because I am trying to cause trouble but because I am sick of people always assuming he's out to get the Redskins. Everyone is quick to forget what good he says about the skins, and always tries to find negatives in even the most mild, factual statements about Snyder, et al. All he said is this is something the league might want to look into, and people here are saying he is 'accusing the skins of cheating' and that Snyder should sue King. It's rediculous. That's all. hey, duration doesnt take you off the bench. Only experience. If you think that there is anything but blatent bias in Kings accusations, then you probably need help. What if King said the same thing about New Orleans and Brooks if a similar circumstance arose. Don't play high and mighty here with the whole. "King is just misunderstood nonsense" either. It's plain as day what his intent was in saying what he said. PS You still havent shown the evidence that there was something illegal done by the skins in the past yet. Isnt that the whole premise of your feable point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 One more time. That is not what is in the article. Why is this so hard?From his MMQB column -- 2. I think just for the sake of insuring trust in the salary cap from some skeptical front offices, the league needs to make sure LaVar Arrington is really going to forego the $4 million in guaranteed money he gave back to Washington to get his freedom now. Not saying it didn't happen, but I am saying with all the money the Redskins have to spare and how convenient it was that the team could find this money after months of hand-wringing over the Arrington deal, the league needs to double-check that the accounting of this is clean. Because, of course, Peter King is so concerned with insuring trust in the salary cap. He's really upset and concerned that some front offices might be skeptical about it's validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 It wouldn't surpise me if these "skeptical front offices" who don't like the deal are Parcells and/or Belichick, and they're using their little ***** to do their dirty work and raise a stink about it. We all now that King would do anything to be able to give either of them a reacharound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Do enough investigating and I'm sure you'll find Peter Queen's family tree doesn't go far. I'm now accusing peter queen of being a neglected child and test tube baby/orphan. He was raised in a catholic convent, was abused as a child, and the nuns beat him early and often as an adolescent. His hate has manifested itself in many ways. Not only does he hate the Redskins, but, ultimately, himself. And very much so. F you, Petie. Go back to the convent, it didn't stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 hey, duration doesnt take you off the bench. Only experience. I have plenty of posting experience. Just because it's not all on this forum doesn't mean I'm a troll. If you think that there is anything but blatent bias in Kings accusations, then you probably need help. What if King said the same thing about New Orleans and Brooks if a similar circumstance arose. Don't play high and mighty here with the whole. "King is just misunderstood nonsense" either. I'm not saying he never says anything bad about the skins. I just do not think it is always bad, as people make it out to be on this forum. If he said that about Brooks, then fine. That is his opinion. It would probably make me think twice about the front office and how it operates. It's plain as day what his intent was in saying what he said. That is your opinion. PS You still havent shown the evidence that there was something illegal done by the skins in the past yet. Isnt that the whole premise of your feable point? I thought I answered that in a post. Maybe it got lost, I have been getting a lot of site errors this afternoon. Anyway I will paraphrase: My argument doesn't hinge on something illegal done by the skins. It's a fact that the skins will spend any amount of money to help the team, and that there was a much publicized contract dispute between LA and the skins. Now, all of a sudden, a deal is worked out and everyone is is happy. It's within the realm of possibility that the skins did whatever it took to help the team by making this go away. Just like the Michael Jackson example. Nothing illegal has been done by Jackson yet. But there is enough in Jackson's personality, actions, and character to make people think he is a sexual predator, although he has *technically* never done anything illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Do enough investigating and I'm sure you'll find Peter Queen's family tree doesn't go far.I'm now accusing peter queen of being a neglected child and test tube baby/orphan. He was raised in a catholic convent, was abused as a child, and the nuns beat him early and often as an adolescent. His hate has manifested itself in many ways. Not only does he hate the Redskins, but, ultimately, himself. And very much so. F you, Petie. Go back to the convent, it didn't stick. You forgot to mention that as a baby they used to have him sleep in a bed made of Led Paint chips, with open black magic markers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 You forgot to mention that as a baby they used to have him sleep in a bed made of Led Paint chips, with open black magic markers. Ahhhh! See, the truth always comes out in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 The best part of Peter ran down his mother's leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.