huffingtonpost.com: Dan Snyder inspires lawmakers to draft legislation to stop people from doing things Dan Snyder does

[Califan007 The Constipated]

You should know what was said if you're going to take on the role of Dan Snyder's personal forum warrior.

1) Which, of course, would explain why I asked "what 'cancer card' and how was it not applicable" lol ...Jeebus. I already knew about Snyder claiming that McKenna was "ridiculing" his wife by claiming she went onto the show to act as his spokesperson and hype up the Transformation Of Dan Snyder". I thought there might have been something else I had not heard of, though, and thought it better to ask for clarification rather than go off half-****ed as if I knew what was being talked about. You know, like any mature adult would do...which is why it must have confused some of you guys.

2) I'm not a "Snyder Warrior", but I am a logic enthusiast. Lots of illogical ranting and factual errors when it comes to the ISH crowd.

Mrs. Snyder interview stuff...

The mention of cancer might not have been directly applicable, no--although she WAS there to promote health issues while in the middle of being the founding partner of the NFL's ThinkPink campaign against breast cancer...but the video makes McKenna look far, FAR worse than Snyder does. Characterizing Tanya Snyder's interview in that video as "she went on local TV [TBD's SportsTalk] to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved.” is an absolutely ridiculous exaggeration of what actually transpired. She said 1 1/2 sentences (if that) about anything having to do with Snyder's "transformation"...1 1/2 sentences. About 25-30 seconds out of a 12 minute interview.

Snyder's reaction of "You should treat her with more respect, she's a cancer spokesperson and a cancer survivor as well" was overly dramatic, but he's her husband. Wylie's comments about Tanya Snyder "only" going on tv, radio and doing interviews to talk about cancer would be more accurate as her "only" talking about health issues in general...but good lord, it's obvious he means she does NOT agree to go on tv, radio and do interviews in order to prop up Dan Snyder like McKenna alludes to rather strongly.

I can't believe anyone who finds fault with Snyder or Wylie's comments here would not find even stronger fault with McKenna's characterization of Tanya Snyder's appearance in that video. Then again, if you hate Snyder enough I suppose that's all that matters.

[ouvan59]

This is the issue that I’m anxious to hear about. How much did Snyder know about the forging of signatures? As head of the company I can’t imagine that he was totally in the dark. He may be inadvertently setting himself up to have to reveal some information that he would rather not.

If it was a policy then yes he would know about it. But if it was a by-product of sales quotas or job expectations then it may not have been known. I've worked a couple of jobs where workers did similar things without even their managers knowledge much less the owner of the company. In another job a manager had employees checking the damage waivers on insurance car rentals even if the renter turned the coverage down. The company got in deep doo-doo even though it wasn't company policy and it wasn't done outside our office.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying Snyder didn't know or even encourage it because I don't have any idea either way.

[addicted]

How has Daniel M. Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, changed?

He listened.

It took him a decade of stubbornly thinking he knew best, and making the same repeated mistakes, but he finally listened and gave us what we've craved for so long. The football side has now been fully handed over to proper football people, with the once meddling, megalomaniac owner not so much as setting foot in Redskins Park the past year by all accounts save for coach/player introductory pressers; which if that isn't going "cold turkey" on what went before I don't know what is. No longer can the players go running to the owner and expect him to have their back over the HC down to the money they make for him. And did we heard anything from him through the media last season, through a lot of off field turmoil within the locker room?

We finally have a respectable owner, running a respectable football franchise again, at least off the field. (Patience ladies and gents. The on field success will follow in time.). I've been as critical of the owner as the next guy, and justifiably so more often than not through his tenure here. But through the 2010 season, the first of the new regime of Allan and Shanahan, I have nothing but praise for him finally "getting it", and giving us what we've wanted for so long.

Long may he continue in his new guise.

Concise enough for ya' ?

Hail.

I appreciate this response. And I can give him some credit for that. However do you really think him firing Vinny and getting out of dodge is enough for the fans to forget things he did to them like how he guagued ticket and parking prices over and over again, how he won't tolerate anti Snyder signs in the parking lots, how he nickle and dimed every single chance he could, or how he fired Frank Herzog the voice of the Redskins and replaced him with Larry Michaels, or how he sued an 80 year old woman because she fell behind on ticket payments, or any of the other crap he's done. In your eyes two right moves - Him removing himself and Vinny Ceratto from the team - makes up for all of the other crap he's pulled?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

He will still be the same cancerous individual who destroyed my football team and made it a league-wide laughing stock.

So in reality, the validity of this lawsuit is irrelevant in your eyes. Gotcha.

[ouvan59]

I appreciate this response. And I can give him some credit for that. However do you really think him firing Vinny and getting out of dodge is enough for the fans to forget things he did to them like how he guagued ticket and parking prices over and over again, how he won't tolerate anti Snyder signs in the parking lots, how he nickle and dimed every single chance he could, or how he fired Frank Herzog the voice of the Redskins and replaced him with Larry Michaels, or how he sued an 80 year old woman because she fell behind on ticket payments, or any of the other crap he's done. In your eyes two right moves - Him removing himself and Vinny Ceratto from the team - makes up for all of the other crap he's pulled?

Oh gosh, he tried to make money. Oooooh what a jerk.

The only thing I hold against him is that he used my favorite team as his personal play toy and caused us a decade of heart ache. The fact that he wants to make as much money as he can off of those who want to buy his product doesn't bother me in the least. The fact that he won't let you put up a degrading poster of him on his property doesn't bother me in the least. The fact that we have sucked for 10 years ****ing pisses me off.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

For what it's worth, I'm not saying Snyder didn't know or even encourage it because I don't have any idea either way.

And that's the problem...neither does McKenna. Didn't stop him from phrasing certain parts of his article as if he did, though...and from wanting his readers to believe the same.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

But, most likely, this team won't become a consistent contender overnight. He's not known for his patience. If we have two more sub-.500 seasons, who's to say he won't blow the whole thing up again and demand changes? I'll believe he's changed when he stays in the background for more than a year or two.

'K, that's an understandable POV to be reticent going forward after what's gone before.

But why, and I'm not saying you are, this is a general question to those that do; continue to bash the guy at every verse end whilst he currently IS doing the right thing? What may happen in the future is a hypothetical. What's happening currently, which is all you can really judge a guy on after he has given you what you've asked, what he's doing in the present following that; is fact.

If a few years down the line, after the inevitable continued down results that a re-build such as the one we're currently in brings about; he reverts to the bad ol' Dan; the please, by all means castigate the dude to Hell and back. Heck, I'll doubtless be right there alongside you.

But whilst he's continuing to do as so many wanted, cut the guy some slack and roll with the new, professional football franchise you have back.

Hail.

[ouvan59]

And that's the problem...neither does McKenna. Didn't stop him from phrasing certain parts of his article as if he did, though...and from wanting his readers to believe the same.

Agreed. I keep saying it. Just because you (the collective you) hate Snyder doesn't mean that the WCP isn't completely in the wrong here. People have a real problem seperating the issues.

[Zhouse]

"Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."....also because they have friends that buy ink by the barrel too.

Even if he miraculously wins (or punks the City Paper) in court, Snyder's going to lose the war.

[Destino]

2) I'm not a "Snyder Warrior", but I am a logic enthusiast. Lots of illogical ranting and factual errors when it comes to the ISH crowd.

Call yourself Grand Puba for all I care it's not going to change anything.

The mention of cancer might not have been directly applicable, no--although she WAS there to promote health issues while in the middle of being the founding partner of the NFL's ThinkPink campaign against breast cancer...but the video makes McKenna look far, FAR worse than Snyder does. Characterizing Tanya Snyder's interview in that video as "she went on local TV [TBD's SportsTalk] to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved.” is an absolutely ridiculous exaggeration of what actually transpired. She said 1 1/2 sentences (if that) about anything having to do with Snyder's "transformation"...1 1/2 sentences. About 25-30 seconds out of a 12 minute interview.

Snyder's reaction of "You should treat her with more respect, she's a cancer spokesperson and a cancer survivor as well" was overly dramatic, but he's her husband. Wylie's comments about Tanya Snyder "only" going on tv, radio and doing interviews to talk about cancer would be more accurate as her "only" talking about health issues in general...but good lord, it's obvious he means she does NOT agree to go on tv, radio and do interviews in order to prop up Dan Snyder like McKenna alludes to rather strongly.

I can't believe anyone who finds fault with Snyder or Wylie's comments here would not find even stronger fault with McKenna's characterization of Tanya Snyder's appearance in that video. Then again, if you hate Snyder enough I suppose that's all that matters.

Didn't take you long to lose that enthusiasm for logic did it, Grand Puba? WThat interview wasn't about charity. If you were interested in honesty and accuracy the interview would be described as "Tanya Snyder talking about current items in her life". They talked about her charity work, her recent appearance in ads (which seemed to prompt her invite onto the show), and of course her husband. Dan Snyder got it wrong. Tony Wylie got it wrong. The interview had nothing to do with breast cancer. McKenna claimed she was out selling transformation, which isn't a good description of the interview but at least his claim was indeed mentioned in the interview. Like it or not she did say it.

I also have to ask, how exactly was she made fun of? If I take McKenna at his word and believe she's out selling Dan's transformation... I'm left with a wife supporting her husband on TV. Oh the humanity. How will this poor woman live on with such a burden.

[elkabong82]

You should know what was said if you're going to take on the role of Dan Snyder's personal forum warrior.

What McKenna said about Dan's wife:

what was actually said:

What Dan Snyder said about that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020406580.html

What Tony Wylie said about that:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2011/02/why_the_redskins_are_suing_cit.html#more

The actual interview is here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2010/11/tanya_snyder_redskins_owner_ha.html She wasn't on to talk cancer at all and the majority (time wise) is not about charity at all. It's about her and because she is married to Dan Snyder a lot of time is spent on him. Including the following quote:

And in the previous discussions it was pointed out that "out selling the transformation" implies more than just 1 time, like she's only in the public eye to cheer on Dan Snyder, when actually she is "out selling" breast cancer awareness. In that tv bit she was talking about the NFL's healthy kids, play 60 IIRC, and had a segment on Dan Snyder as well. However, if McKenna is going to suggest Tanya Snyder is out and about pumping up Dan, then shouldn't he require more than just 1 example?

McKenna implied her public agenda was selling Snyder's image, when her agenda is breast cancer awareness. So I can understand why they feel it's a slight against her and the cause she works for.

Plus, it was a pathetic move by McKenna. There's a myriad, a plethora, of stuff to criticize Snyder over, is it necessary to bring his wife into it as well? That's making it personal, IMO, and it's a sleazeball move from someone who clearly has an agenda when you consider the number of articles in just a few months he wrote all attacking Snyder instead of discussing the actual team, and never once did he use journalistic integrity and try to contact Snyder or his reps for verification or follow up.

and is "personal forum warrior" really necessary? Do you really have to attack a poster simply because you disagree with them? Don't you think such a comment is a bit immature. You're a really good poster on here, and I think you're better than stooping to that.

If you were writing a thread/post that criticized Snyder, would you ever consider bringing his wife into it? Or would you consider yourself above such ugliness?

[SirClintonPortis]

Dan Snyder will have to provided intent of malice, and by the legal definition of the term, "malice", not the colloquial one.

Not only that, he made his own bed in which he has to prove that McKenna's article led to general damages against him in the grand total of at least 1 million dollars, per his own tort.

Snyder doesn't just want a judgment and be happy with it, he seriously believes that this article caused damages of at least 1 million bucks and he wants it.

[elkabong82]

If it was a policy then yes he would know about it. But if it was a by-product of sales quotas or job expectations then it may not have been known. I've worked a couple of jobs where workers did similar things without even their managers knowledge much less the owner of the company. In another job a manager had employees checking the damage waivers on insurance car rentals even if the renter turned the coverage down. The company got in deep doo-doo even though it wasn't company policy and it wasn't done outside our office.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying Snyder didn't know or even encourage it because I don't have any idea either way.

I did telemarketing for Comcast for 6 months when I was young (just after 2000), and there was little supervision, all the managers cared about was making a quota. People used to do the same thing there, where they sign up a customer without consent, in order to meet quotas. The verification method? A simple voice recorder completely controlled by the telemarketer, so they can record their script and do a fake customer voice, and if that person makes a complaint they were signed up for something they didn;t agree to, it almost never got back to the telemarketer, and if it did they simply denied and claimed the customer was lying and just trying to get free service. Happened a lot, and without proper supervision people overfilled quotas to get more commission, and after 6 months Comcast cut commision rates literally in half because they were paying telemarketers in our area so much.

And through all of that I would never have expected a CEO to know what was going on, they're in a different office in a different city or state, and focused on large picture stuff.

and McKenna said Snyder did it personally, which is a direct accusation. There's no logic behind an assertion that a CEO was personally telemarketing, they have much bigger jobs. It's like saying Exxon CEOs pump gas at full service stations, IMO.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 04:11 PM ----------

Dan Snyder will have to provided intent of malice, and by the legal definition of the term, "malice", not the colloquial one.

Not only that, he made his own bed in which he has to prove that McKenna's article led to general damages against him in the grand total of at least 1 million dollars, per his own tort.

Snyder doesn't just want a judgment and be happy with it, he seriously believes that this article caused damages of at least 1 million bucks and he wants it.

Do you think there's a possibility that Snyder feels McKenna crossed a line, and so he's setting the damages high to force a settlement and possibly get McKenna or the whole paper shutdown to send a message of what the line is and what consequences are of crossing it?

He hasn't gone after anyone else, and to me, an accusation of forgery, a felony, and criticizing/misrepresenting his wife instead of just sticking to the man himself, is a pretty clear line one thinking clearly and acting with integrity won't cross. I have yet to see any other writer cross that line when criticizing Snyder.

And I think that this was a long time coming. The stupid quarrel between Snyder and the local media was just going to keep escalating, especially any time the team does poorly, and eventually it was bound to happen that as long as the Redskins kept losing eventually some writer out there would go too far as the quarrel escalated. McKenna hit on a lot of accurate criticism of Snyder in his piece, there's no debating that. But McKenna was reckless, crossed a clear line, and from the number of hit pieces he wrote and never once contacting Snyder or his reps for verification or the other side of the story (which good, professional journalists do), it's clear he has an agenda and did get carried away, IMO anyways.

[JPCreativelab]

FWIW i worked at AT&T with some friends of mine from high school. I didnt stay there long but my friends became salesmen and were there for years. i cant count how many different schemes went on there...to boost their numbers, for bigger pay checks.

Snyder Communications was definitely smaller than AT&T, but i think the logic still applies. Snyder may be guilty of multiple things, but i would wager that he had no clue of any of that stuff the sales folk were doing.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Call yourself Grand Puba for all I care it's not going to change anything.

I know...just like the other poster said that even if a judge, jury and a court of law all said Snyder's lawsuit was valid and he won big-time it wouldn't change their minds.

And for the record, I tend to write my posts for all the other viewers to these types of threads, so that they can get a counter-balance to the irrational chain of logic some end up using. I don't write them to personally change Destino's mind.

Didn't take you long to lose that enthusiasm for logic did it, Grand Puba? WThat interview wasn't about charity. If you were interested in honesty and accuracy the interview would be described as "Tanya Snyder talking about current items in her life".

No, if I were interested in honesty and accuracy I would find out if the producers of the show asked Tanya Snyder on to promote the health issues she's been out promoting, and if that's the main reason she went on the show. Who I would definitely not ask, is you.

But since they started off with exactly that (meaning, the health issues Tanya has been promoting) and spent the first half of the interview on those things (and started off the interview with video clips of Tanya hosting health events at local schools), I tend to buy that promoting those same health events was her primary (and likely only) reason for saying "ok" to an interview (or setting one up)...that they talked about other things doesn't negate that fact. (psst...that's where the facts and logic I talked about earlier come in)

Had the producers said "Nope, we just want to talk about Dan" I highly doubt she still would have said "ok". Unless you want to dig up an interview she did where health issues weren't the primary topic and Dan was. Feel free to do so.

They talked about her charity work, her recent appearance in ads (which seemed to prompt her invite onto the show), and of course her husband. Dan Snyder got it wrong. Tony Wylie got it wrong. The interview had nothing to do with breast cancer.

Snyder didn't say in that quote you had before that she did the interview to promote breast cancer. Wylie said she "only" talks about cancer--as opposed to doing interviews to "sell" Dan Snyder's transformation to the masses, as McKenna was suggesting. Well, if Wylie said "health issues" instead of just "cancer" he would have been accurate, no? Of course he would. That was his point.

And again, if you find fault with Wylie for that comment, if you had any intellectual honesty in you then you should be absolutely furious at McKenna for what HE said. But I can see that was more than fine with you. As long as any little snippet of the interview can be used to bolster the exaggerated claims McKenna made against Snyder and even his wife, then all is A-OK in Destinoland. :thumbsup:

McKenna claimed she was out selling transformation, which isn't a good description of the interview but at least his claim was indeed mentioned in the interview. Like it or not she did say it.

Exactly...he said she was out "selling" this transformation. She never would have even mentioned the "transformation" had she not been asked about it. That's not "selling"...that would be like someone asking me for directions to the interstate while I was waiting on the bus, then someone else claiming that the reason I was even outside to begin with was so that I could give people directions lol ...

I also have to ask, how exactly was she made fun of? If I take McKenna at his word and believe she's out selling Dan's transformation... I'm left with a wife supporting her husband on TV. Oh the humanity. How will this poor woman live on with such a burden.

He didn't say Tanya "supported" Snyder. He said she was using these interviews to "sell" his transformation.

By claiming she was out "selling" Snyder's transformation he directly alludes to her being little more than Dan's shill...much like you seem to think the only reason I could possibly hold the views I do is because I'm "Snyder's personal warrior", or as others love to say a "Snyder apologist". And by ignoring her ongoing promotion of health issues being the real reason she's doing these interviews, he indirectly claims that she's insincere about wanting to shine a light on different health issues. She's "really" only there to prop up the evil Dan Snyder...

That's insulting. And as elkabong said, bringing in the man's wife into the argument against him takes it to a personal and unprofessional level that deserves to be called out. She's out doing really good work on behalf of a host of health issues...why should one single sentence in support of her husband be extrapolated into a negative like McKenna has done? I honestly doubt what she said would have registered with anyone watching that interview, it was so innocuous. McKenna, though, saw it as an insanely small mole hill to turn into a mountain, anything to help in a bashing of Dan Snyder. And apparently McKenna has his own "personal warriors" to help him along in that task.

[ouvan59]

He hasn't gone after anyone else, and to me, an accusation of forgery, a felony, and criticizing/misrepresenting his wife instead of just sticking to the man himself, is a pretty clear line one thinking clearly and acting with integrity won't cross. I have yet to see any other writer cross that line when criticizing Snyder.

I think it was extremely stupid for Snyder to include the statements about his wife and the horned caracature in his original gripe because neither was libelous. They may have been in poor taste but it wasn't something that can be sued over. They really reached there IMO. And the problem is it gave his critics a place to focus the story instead of the actual sueable issue which you no longer see being talked about in print.

[elkabong82]

I think it was extremely stupid for Snyder to include the statements about his wife and the horned caracature in his original gripe because neither was libelous. They may have been in poor taste but it wasn't something that can be sued over. They really reached there IMO. And the problem is it gave his critics a place to focus the story instead of the actual sueable issue which you no longer see being talked about in print.

I had just assumed it was his lawyers piling on charges to build a more volumous case, otherwise the lawyers wouldn't have included them and just stuck to the main one. I don't think they care about their perception to critics, I think all they care about, his lawyers, is building the strongest case possible. To me, it explains the initial shotgun tactic of accusations.The wife thing I get, it adds to the "personal vendetta" they are claiming McKenna has. I agree the picture was nitpicking, but I can't think of a good lawyer who wouldn't try to throw anti-semitism here. I expect over-dramatizations and "piling on" in most public lawsuits.

Snyder talked about the sueable issue, but I don't think we see a lot of media outlets talking about that specifically because it was a direct accusation and they don't want to get tangled up in that web, so they avoid it so they can argue for McKenna and prevent a precedent from being set by an owner/public figure against the media.

[pimpumd]

Dan Snyder will have to provided intent of malice, and by the legal definition of the term, "malice", not the colloquial one.

Not only that, he made his own bed in which he has to prove that McKenna's article led to general damages against him in the grand total of at least 1 million dollars, per his own tort.

Snyder doesn't just want a judgment and be happy with it, he seriously believes that this article caused damages of at least 1 million bucks and he wants it.

Most of this is absolutely absurd. Yes, Dan Snyder will have to prove "actual malice" in order to prevail in his lawsuit. All that means is that Snyder will have to prove McKenna wrote the forgery claim knowing it was not true or with "reckless disregard for the truth."

Whether or not he will need to prove he suffered exactly $1 million in damages is another story. Impugning one's character by asserting the person committed a felony constitutes "libel per se," which is one of the claims within the lawsuit. Such a claim is considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proven in order to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

In other words, if Snyder can in fact prove he has suffered $1 million in damages (and he wins his case), then he would be get a judgment of $1 million. However, because we're dealing with a claim of "libel per se," the jury can still issue an award (or judgment) in favor of Snyder without Snyder demonstrating any actual monetary damages.

The fact of the matter is that it is common, when filing such a lawsuit, to attach an arbitrary figure (such as $1 million, $5 million, etc.) as the damages sought. Whether or not the Plaintiff receives that is another story. It is highly likely that Snyder will approach or surpass $1 million just in legal fees for this lawsuit. He has retained numerous high-priced attorneys and if the case gets beyond pre-trial motions and into discovery, his legal fees will soar. Snyder clearly didn't file this lawsuit seeking to make a buck off it. That idea is simply absurd.

BTW--I am an attorney but I don't practice any 1st amendment/defamation matters. If there's somebody more knowledgeable in this arena, feel free to correct any inaccuracy on my part.

[elkabong82]

And I think Tanya Snyder uses Dan Snyder and the NFL to promote her cause. To suggest, as McKenna seemed to do, that Tanya Snyder is using her cause to pump up Dan Snyder's rep, is IMO disparaging to her and her cause.

McKenna was dishonest and at the very least made it out to seem Tanya Snyder ONLY went on tv to pump up Dan Snyder, if not suggesting her cause ("out selling the transformation") is solely to be Dan's PR machine.

[Oldfan]

...Absolutely man. But he DID get rid of Cerrato. And hire a proper football man to oversee the football side whilst he stepped right back and become what an owner should be.

But apparently even that isn't good enough for some.

Hail.

I wouldn't have hired Joe Gibbs and given him complete control as Dan did, but Joe was a "proper football man." So, it isn't as though Dan didn't hire a proper football man and step back before.

[SirClintonPortis]

Most of this is absolutely absurd. Yes, Dan Snyder will have to prove "actual malice" in order to prevail in his lawsuit. All that means is that Snyder will have to prove McKenna wrote the forgery claim knowing it was not true or with "reckless disregard for the truth."

Whether or not he will need to prove he suffered exactly $1 million in damages is another story. Impugning one's character by asserting the person committed a felony constitutes "libel per se," which is one of the claims within the lawsuit. Such a claim is considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proven in order to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.

In other words, if Snyder can in fact prove he has suffered $1 million in damages (and he wins his case), then he would be get a judgment of $1 million. However, because we're dealing with a claim of "libel per se," the jury can still issue an award (or judgment) in favor of Snyder without Snyder demonstrating any actual monetary damages.

The fact of the matter is that it is common, when filing such a lawsuit, to attach an arbitrary figure (such as $1 million, $5 million, etc.) as the damages sought. Whether or not the Plaintiff receives that is another story. It is highly likely that Snyder will approach or surpass $1 million just in legal fees for this lawsuit. He has retained numerous high-priced attorneys and if the case gets beyond pre-trial motions and into discovery, his legal fees will soar. Snyder clearly didn't file this lawsuit seeking to make a buck off it. That idea is simply absurd.

BTW--I am an attorney but I don't practice any 1st amendment/defamation matters. If there's somebody more knowledgeable in this arena, feel free to correct any inaccuracy on my part.

Yeah, that was a bit of a stupid moment for me. Yes, I admit it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yeah, that was a bit of a stupid moment for me. Yes, I admit it.

If you didn't have "stupid moments" you wouldn't be a Skins fan and we wouldn't have let you join ES lol...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why do I get the impression that the owner could offer free admission, with free refreshments for all; whilst staying on the shadows and watch Bruce and Mike put together a multiple SB winning team; and STILL there'd be those amongst the fanbase, forget those on the outside, but those amongst out own who would still refuse to accept anything the man did and continue to view him as the anti-Christ?

Hail.

Let's just try to win a division title first.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 04:07 PM ----------

And I think Tanya Snyder uses Dan Snyder and the NFL to promote her cause. To suggest, as McKenna seemed to do, that Tanya Snyder is using her cause to pump up Dan Snyder's rep, is IMO disparaging to her and her cause.

McKenna was dishonest and at the very least made it out to seem Tanya Snyder ONLY went on tv to pump up Dan Snyder, if not suggesting her cause ("out selling the transformation") is solely to be Dan's PR machine.

Wasn't it determined that the specific time McKenna quoted her was an interview that had nothing to do with her cause?

[elkabong82]

Let's just try to win a division title first.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 04:07 PM ----------

Wasn't it determined that the specific time McKenna quoted her was an interview that had nothing to do with her cause?

It wasn't specifically about her main cause with breast cancer. The main focus seemed to be on kids health, obesity, and the NFL play 60 initiative (and Dan Snyder has funded football fields in underprivileged areas, as other owners have, under that initiative, there was a story not too long ago about him accepting an award on the NFL's behalf for just that). She was "out selling" the NFL's initiative with kids staying healthy, exercising, etc.

[pimpumd]

Yeah, that was a bit of a stupid moment for me. Yes, I admit it.

Not really a stupid moment on your part. Defamation law is one of the trickiest legal concepts to navigate and decipher. Jurisdictions, as well as many legal scholars, cannot agree on a number of issues within the defamation arena.