Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread


Recommended Posts

I have no love lost for dan Snyder but someone has an agenda here.

They released the first article with a week of ridiculous build up, then catapulted the **** against the wall and most of it didn't stick apparently they decided to regroup, pick up all the **** and fling it again. 

I'm not saying snyder is innocent and hell, I'd love to see him go, but at what point do we have to admit this isn't solely about the accusations and there are twenty years of vitriol for dan snyder behind some of this?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, redskinss said:

I have no love lost for dan Snyder but someone has an agenda here.

They released the first article with a week of ridiculous build up, then catapulted the **** against the wall and most of it didn't stick apparently they decided to regroup, pick up all the **** and fling it again. 

I'm not saying snyder is innocent and hell, I'd love to see him go, but at what point do we have to admit this isn't solely about the accusations and there are twenty years of vitriol for dan snyder behind some of this?

My take is that the first article made more people feel comfortable to come out and speak about what they've experienced. There may be an agenda against Snyder, but that doesn't detract from the actual wrongs that he's committed or allowed. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

My take is that the first article made more people feel comfortable to come out and speak about what they've experienced. There may be an agenda against Snyder, but that doesn't detract from the actual wrongs that he's committed or allowed. 

 

This, plus I strongly believe that the WP wanted to look more into the legalities before releasing more details. You know Snyder's lawyers were probably threatening them big time. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Fair enough, I don't know enough to know. I do agree that raw footage existing during a photo shoot that includes body paint, topless girls, etc. is going to have some "collateral damage" with some explicit footage. But, I think it's completely fair (and I know you do too) that those girls could have expected that footage to be professionally handled/discarded/etc. 

 

 

yep, absolutely agree. For me it was always paramount for the models to feel comfortable and safe when working with me, which makes for far better shoots. That's one of the things that pisses me off, that these women were taken advantage of by those they gave their trust to. And like you said, it HAS to be illegal. Actually, while reading the article I kinda got pissed off at the two guys who ended up making the DVD for Larry...when one of them said later that he shouldn't have done it, I was like you're waaaaay too late, you should have said "No" from the get-go and refused. I hold those who do what I do to a higher standard than most because I've been in their shoes. I was pissed off at the photographer for not immediately making it a closed shoot once the possibility of nudity was present. The whole thing just pisses me off lol...

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious what you guys think, but what are the chances Bezos is pushing WP to dig up as much dirt on Snyder as possible?  After all, he does own the Post, has a home in DC, and has been mentioned as a potential buyer of the team in the past (if Snyder were to ever sell).  Not trying to defend Snyder at all.  I think he's a terrible owner, but having followed the team for decades, it's just weird the amount of really bad publicity that's been coming out lately.  In years past, you would hear about a dispute with a player or how the team name continues to be offensive, but these days, the bad news is on another level.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I have no love lost for dan Snyder but someone has an agenda here.

They released the first article with a week of ridiculous build up, then catapulted the **** against the wall and most of it didn't stick apparently they decided to regroup, pick up all the **** and fling it again. 

I'm not saying snyder is innocent and hell, I'd love to see him go, but at what point do we have to admit this isn't solely about the accusations and there are twenty years of vitriol for dan snyder behind some of this?

 

I think it was always planned to be a 2 or 3-part article published at certain intervals. Which means how well the allegations in the first article "stuck" was probably irrelevant to this article being published.

 

I do have some "Wait a minute..." issues concerning the articles that have me wondering about accuracy at moments. But the overall point of the articles I definitely believe right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I have no love lost for dan Snyder but someone has an agenda here.

They released the first article with a week of ridiculous build up, then catapulted the **** against the wall and most of it didn't stick apparently they decided to regroup, pick up all the **** and fling it again. 

I'm not saying snyder is innocent and hell, I'd love to see him go, but at what point do we have to admit this isn't solely about the accusations and there are twenty years of vitriol for dan snyder behind some of this?

 

Maybe the agenda is, stop being a ****ing asshole Daniel.

 

Seriously, how is this your take?  What is wrong with you??

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

Maybe the agenda is, stop being a ****ing asshole Daniel.

 

Seriously, how is this your take?  What is wrong with you??

I'm sorry I didn't just mindlessly agree with what I was told to agree with

 

What is wrong with me??

 

How about I might think someone at least deserves a tiny bit of benefit of doubt before being crucified by the internet mob.

 

We really are heading for severely troubled waters if someone can't even express a modicum of doubt without being asked what is wrong with them.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I'm sorry I didn't just mindlessly agree with what I was told to agree with

 

What is wrong with me??

 

How about I might think someone at least deserves a tiny bit of benefit of doubt before being crucified by the internet mob.

 

We really are heading for severely troubled waters if someone can't even express a modicum of doubt without being asked what is wrong with them.

 

 

 

You are a terrible person.

  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The agenda here is most likely the plaintiffs' attorney trying to drive a larger settlement after she took on additional clients and found new claims. She most likely fed the basics to the Post and let them do the rest.

 

I doubt Bezos is involved. And the Post could hardly not write about such a huge story.

Edited by profusion
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I'm sorry I didn't just mindlessly agree with what I was told to agree with

 

What is wrong with me??

 

How about I might think someone at least deserves a tiny bit of benefit of doubt before being crucified by the internet mob.

 

We really are heading for severely troubled waters if someone can't even express a modicum of doubt without being asked what is wrong with them.

 

 

 

Tiny bit of benefit of the doubt? At this point, he exhausted all of that years ago. There is far too much smoke for there not to be fire. At absolute BEST for Snyder, he created a culture that allowed this to happen. It's much more likely that he was complicit. Just because he owns your favorite team, that doesn't mean you can't have a complex thought about it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Because you're driving and don't need to be distracted by looking at your phone lol...

Currently on I 15 north bound lol..headed to the farm... so far I've gathered we're that much more closer of the Snyder being gone

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Tiny bit of benefit of the doubt? At this point, he exhausted all of that years ago. There is far too much smoke for there not to be fire. At absolute BEST for Snyder, he created a culture that allowed this to happen. It's much more likely that he was complicit. Just because he owns your favorite team, that doesn't mean you can't have a complex thought about it. 

Did you read my original post?

I said he may be guilty and I'd love to see him go.

My comment has absolutely nothing to do with my love for this football team.

I am the one trying to have a complex thought about it, if I wanted to just grab the pitchfork and torches, there's plenty of them being handed out right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodell translation: "We're just going to let this one play out. Good luck, Dan."

7 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Hopefully the NFL's own investigation isn't a sham.

 

My read is that this is the same investigation that Snyder ordered, not a new one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, This is exactly what I asked for a few hours ago!

 

The reference to “appropriate action” being taken if the team “fails to cooperate” is a clear shot across the bow of Snyder’s luxury yacht.

 

I suspect that potential witnesses with NDAs will indeed be indemnified against liability for their statements to the NFL.

 

There is hope of excising the cancer from the corpus proper after all.

 

”This may not be the beginning of the end but it is the end of the beginning.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redskinss said:

They released the first article with a week of ridiculous build up, then catapulted the **** against the wall and most of it didn't stick apparently they decided to regroup, pick up all the **** and fling it again. 

That’s not what happened. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redskinss said:

I'm sorry I didn't just mindlessly agree with what I was told to agree with

 

What is wrong with me??

 

How about I might think someone at least deserves a tiny bit of benefit of doubt before being crucified by the internet mob.

 

We really are heading for severely troubled waters if someone can't even express a modicum of doubt without being asked what is wrong with them.

 

 


that’s not what’s wrong with you and that’s not what you’re doing. 
 

you’ve been presented facts about how this second article came about, and rejecting those facts in favor of an opinion you’ve made up out of thin air. 
 

and while doing so, you treat this second article as if it exists in a vacuum when it doesn’t. 
 

That’s not giving someone any benefit of the doubt. That’s not clinging to some notion of morals. 
 

it’s willfully believing something with zero support over something with support. 
 

juxtapose that with the whole general issue of how women are treated when they report things, and you fit right in with the wrong crowd. 
 

the post had 17 women come to them for the first article.

 

the second article started because the person in possession of the tapes, took them to the post after seeing the redskins and snyder get off with essentially just bad PR 

 

the post also had 25 additional women come forward after the first story, and are included in the second story. 
 

not to mention OVER TWO DECADES of reports that snyder treats people like crap, and runs an organization with a toxic culture built on fear. 
 

and your reaction to all of that is to make up this attentive theory, based on nothing of substance, and wave away with your hands 20 years of evidence of ****ty behavior and 42 women coming forward (so far) to claim sexual harassment, being pimped out, and now secrete videos of their private areas. 
 

You have the audacity to call others mindless? To buck up about your morals and extending the benefit of the doubt?

 

how phony and fraudulent. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...