User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 10:40:32 AM EDT
[#1]
That guy is so boned. He will have to play for no take home money for the next 10 years to pay off the lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 10:43:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a broncos fan, though I haven't watched much football since the kneeling. I'd heard they were interested in trading for Watson, does this mean the deal might be off? He got his dick played with Ray Lewis did much worse, his crimes are only outweighed by his skills. As is with most things honestly Elan Musk could skeet skeet skeet the entire BOD at telsa and probably be fine |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 10:43:54 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you say so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I haven’t judged anyone. I’ve just pointed out there are multiple possibilities. I’ve never discouraged the possibility that Watson was guilty. Unlike many, I’m not starting from the position that he’s guilty. I’m starting from the position that we don’t know. If you say so. Go through my posts. I’ve said all along that he may in fact be guilty. I just didn’t immediately go into witch hunt mob mentality. Had the witch hunt been on the other side, I’d be pointing out the weaknesses in that too, but the “believe every accuser” faction is by far the most vocal. I’m not a Watson or a Texans fan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 10:44:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He hired massage therapists. Whether they were actual masseuses or were hired for "happy endings", we don't know. Why? Maybe he liked massages. Maybe he has a creepy fetish. Maybe he's a predator. All are plausible, but none more so than any other. The problem in this thread is that lots of people invent reasons in their head why only only one of these reasons is possible when all are equally possible at this point. People hire private therapists (both kinds) for two reasons- convenience or anonymity. Once the door is closed, all you have are different people's stories about what happened. People make up stories or embellish when the possibility of a paycheck is going involved. High profile celebs also lie to save their asses. Again, there's no way to know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It seems you're not even asking WHY would Watson, a very wealthy, famous, athlete, be arranging different masseuses through Instagram almost weekly? Why did he go from having one masseuse (from his attorney's statement) to hiring estheticians, and a cosmotologist and unlicensed massage therapists to give him glute and groin specific (not arms, not shoulders, not neck) massages? Why would he fly a brand new massage therapist, with no office, in Atlanta to Houston? He has access to dozens of physical therapists and massage therapists from the NFL. He has access to recommendations for professionals from the NFL and teammates. But apparently the act of hiring these women through Instagram should be viewed as a normal activity and they are just all lying because a lawyer said they would get rich if they did? He hired massage therapists. Whether they were actual masseuses or were hired for "happy endings", we don't know. Why? Maybe he liked massages. Maybe he has a creepy fetish. Maybe he's a predator. All are plausible, but none more so than any other. The problem in this thread is that lots of people invent reasons in their head why only only one of these reasons is possible when all are equally possible at this point. People hire private therapists (both kinds) for two reasons- convenience or anonymity. Once the door is closed, all you have are different people's stories about what happened. People make up stories or embellish when the possibility of a paycheck is going involved. High profile celebs also lie to save their asses. Again, there's no way to know. It seems you willingly ignored the fact that he had access to hiring countless professional therapists but did not. You willingly ignored that he hired women who WERE NOT MASSAGE THERAPISTS, who told him they were never trained, to give him massage. These are all very telling signs. They tell us he was not looking for a professional massage. Now the door is wide open to ask what was Watson looking for if he wasn't looking for a massage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 10:46:13 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems you willingly ignored the fact that he had access to hiring countless professional therapists but did not. You willingly ignored that he hired women who WERE NOT MASSAGE THERAPISTS, who told him they were never trained, to give him massage. These are all very telling signs. They tell us he was not looking for a professional massage. Now the door is wide open to ask what was Watson looking for if he wasn't looking for a massage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems you're not even asking WHY would Watson, a very wealthy, famous, athlete, be arranging different masseuses through Instagram almost weekly? Why did he go from having one masseuse (from his attorney's statement) to hiring estheticians, and a cosmotologist and unlicensed massage therapists to give him glute and groin specific (not arms, not shoulders, not neck) massages? Why would he fly a brand new massage therapist, with no office, in Atlanta to Houston? He has access to dozens of physical therapists and massage therapists from the NFL. He has access to recommendations for professionals from the NFL and teammates. But apparently the act of hiring these women through Instagram should be viewed as a normal activity and they are just all lying because a lawyer said they would get rich if they did? He hired massage therapists. Whether they were actual masseuses or were hired for "happy endings", we don't know. Why? Maybe he liked massages. Maybe he has a creepy fetish. Maybe he's a predator. All are plausible, but none more so than any other. The problem in this thread is that lots of people invent reasons in their head why only only one of these reasons is possible when all are equally possible at this point. People hire private therapists (both kinds) for two reasons- convenience or anonymity. Once the door is closed, all you have are different people's stories about what happened. People make up stories or embellish when the possibility of a paycheck is going involved. High profile celebs also lie to save their asses. Again, there's no way to know. It seems you willingly ignored the fact that he had access to hiring countless professional therapists but did not. You willingly ignored that he hired women who WERE NOT MASSAGE THERAPISTS, who told him they were never trained, to give him massage. These are all very telling signs. They tell us he was not looking for a professional massage. Now the door is wide open to ask what was Watson looking for if he wasn't looking for a massage. I ignored nothing of the kind. It appears pretty clear he was specifically looking for therapists for “additional services”. Of course he wasn’t looking for a professional massage. I’ve pointed that out several times. This is creepy, IMO, but not necessarily predatory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 11:36:06 AM EDT
[#6]
The guy is right, the possibility is open on both sides here.
We can use common sense, the information presented, and knowledge of previous situations that were similar to form an educated guess about which side is more likely, but that's it. We might be expecting this to go a certain way, but it is important to keep our mind open to the alternative possibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:17:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's amazing how many people in this thread don't believe in the constitution and our laws. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In what universe does saying "14 different women accusing a man is different than just one woman accusing a man" mean "accusation=guilt"?  I realize you're a hardcore Watson-leghumber, but damn, dude, at least attempt to keep it within reason.  It's amazing how many people in this thread don't believe in the constitution and our laws. You can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to YOU badmouth the United States of America! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:22:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 14+ women have stories, because the lawyer for one woman solicited people to come forward and intimated that there was a possibility of getting paid to do so. You offer to pay for stories, you get them. The more people get solicited to say something, the more likely it is to be true? Watson may still be guilty, but that argument is still a fallacy outside the court of public opinion. Truth by popular vote! Lawyers’ jobs aren’t to produce the truth, their job is to produce an argument. If it happens to be true, that’s great, but it’s not a requirement. This is an interesting roarsach test. Some people immediately jump on the #metoo train, and some assume innocence. Neither have a solid case as yet. People use these massage therapists (whether legit or not) for the anonymity. Once you’re behind closed doors, no resulting story is verifiable. It seems that maybe Watson liked to get jerked off in hotel rooms by “massage therapists”. Plenty of them have been known to offer this service. Legit ones pack their shit and leave when asked to go too far. In either case, there are generally few pieces of evidence. Would a jerkoff therapist be the type to change their story to something more sensational with the promise of getting paid? Of course. Would someone who just left be tempted to embellish the story with the promise of getting paid? Yep. Would someone who was legitimately assaulted (probably a distant third in probability, but still possible) have nothing but a story and no real evidence? Sad, but also true. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe for your next post you can regale us for the 87th time with your claims of how a case with 14+ different woman accusing someone is the same thing as 1 woman accusing someone.  14+ women have stories, because the lawyer for one woman solicited people to come forward and intimated that there was a possibility of getting paid to do so. You offer to pay for stories, you get them. The more people get solicited to say something, the more likely it is to be true? Watson may still be guilty, but that argument is still a fallacy outside the court of public opinion. Truth by popular vote! Lawyers’ jobs aren’t to produce the truth, their job is to produce an argument. If it happens to be true, that’s great, but it’s not a requirement. This is an interesting roarsach test. Some people immediately jump on the #metoo train, and some assume innocence. Neither have a solid case as yet. People use these massage therapists (whether legit or not) for the anonymity. Once you’re behind closed doors, no resulting story is verifiable. It seems that maybe Watson liked to get jerked off in hotel rooms by “massage therapists”. Plenty of them have been known to offer this service. Legit ones pack their shit and leave when asked to go too far. In either case, there are generally few pieces of evidence. Would a jerkoff therapist be the type to change their story to something more sensational with the promise of getting paid? Of course. Would someone who just left be tempted to embellish the story with the promise of getting paid? Yep. Would someone who was legitimately assaulted (probably a distant third in probability, but still possible) have nothing but a story and no real evidence? Sad, but also true. The 15 (or whatever it's up to this hour) different women vs having only one woman who, IIRC, had her "coworker" say she was lying is only part of it. There is also all the evidence the lawyer CLAIMS to have. Not to mention the Duke case was criminal while these, so far, are civil. It all adds up to this not being the same thing as the Duke case. That's not to say it proves Watson is guilty or anything, but the differences are pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:26:24 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFS, are you Watson's publicist? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When you’re fed the money making story by #1 and her lawyer? Of course. There is only one paycheck story that works. Of course they arranged to meet Watson. That’s verifiable. All after that? Completely unverifiable. People will lie for money, FFS, are you Watson's publicist? If he is Watson should fire him because he's making him look even worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:29:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems you willingly ignored the fact that he had access to hiring countless professional therapists but did not. You willingly ignored that he hired women who WERE NOT MASSAGE THERAPISTS, who told him they were never trained, to give him massage. These are all very telling signs. They tell us he was not looking for a professional massage. Now the door is wide open to ask what was Watson looking for if he wasn't looking for a massage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems you're not even asking WHY would Watson, a very wealthy, famous, athlete, be arranging different masseuses through Instagram almost weekly? Why did he go from having one masseuse (from his attorney's statement) to hiring estheticians, and a cosmotologist and unlicensed massage therapists to give him glute and groin specific (not arms, not shoulders, not neck) massages? Why would he fly a brand new massage therapist, with no office, in Atlanta to Houston? He has access to dozens of physical therapists and massage therapists from the NFL. He has access to recommendations for professionals from the NFL and teammates. But apparently the act of hiring these women through Instagram should be viewed as a normal activity and they are just all lying because a lawyer said they would get rich if they did? He hired massage therapists. Whether they were actual masseuses or were hired for "happy endings", we don't know. Why? Maybe he liked massages. Maybe he has a creepy fetish. Maybe he's a predator. All are plausible, but none more so than any other. The problem in this thread is that lots of people invent reasons in their head why only only one of these reasons is possible when all are equally possible at this point. People hire private therapists (both kinds) for two reasons- convenience or anonymity. Once the door is closed, all you have are different people's stories about what happened. People make up stories or embellish when the possibility of a paycheck is going involved. High profile celebs also lie to save their asses. Again, there's no way to know. It seems you willingly ignored the fact that he had access to hiring countless professional therapists but did not. You willingly ignored that he hired women who WERE NOT MASSAGE THERAPISTS, who told him they were never trained, to give him massage. These are all very telling signs. They tell us he was not looking for a professional massage. Now the door is wide open to ask what was Watson looking for if he wasn't looking for a massage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:48:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hard not to focus on such a high number. I bet you think Harvey Weinstein is still innocent as well? I'm not passing judgement but that's a lot of smoking guns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You are also focusing on the number...it ain't that hard..... Hard not to focus on such a high number. I bet you think Harvey Weinstein is still innocent as well? I'm not passing judgement but that's a lot of smoking guns. Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:50:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven’t judged anyone. I’ve just pointed out there are multiple possibilities. I’ve never discouraged the possibility that Watson was guilty. Unlike many, I’m not starting from the position that he’s guilty. I’m starting from the position that we don’t know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I never made any such inference. All of those kinds of “therapists” exist, including ones that do both. Many here, on the other hand, think there’s only one kind, and that they must all be legit, and because they’re legit, they must be 100% honest. It’s important to note, however, that even legit therapists might be persuaded to embellish a story for a paycheck. Massage therapy isn’t exactly a high income profession for most. It appears one of the accusers (at least) has previously attempted to blackmail Watson... So, it is wrong to judge Watson, but you have no problem judging one of his accusers (at least)? I haven’t judged anyone. I’ve just pointed out there are multiple possibilities. I’ve never discouraged the possibility that Watson was guilty. Unlike many, I’m not starting from the position that he’s guilty. I’m starting from the position that we don’t know. Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 12:53:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above.  Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:04:17 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. Quote HistoryQuoted: Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. Considering this post was the first time you made the comparison and you posted it early on page 1 it's pretty obvious that wasn't your point. At least not then. As more people point out the fallacies in your logic you are attempting to move the goal posts. Quoted: So the attorney lives on the same street as the Texans owner. To me, having watched Watson play at Clemson, this screams Duke LaCrosse case. However, if he did contact via Instagram there will be evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:09:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:18:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Considering this post was the first time you made the comparison and you posted it early on page 1 it's pretty obvious that wasn't your point. At least not then. As more people point out the fallacies in your logic you are attempting to move the goal posts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. Considering this post was the first time you made the comparison and you posted it early on page 1 it's pretty obvious that wasn't your point. At least not then. As more people point out the fallacies in your logic you are attempting to move the goal posts. Quoted: So the attorney lives on the same street as the Texans owner. To me, having watched Watson play at Clemson, this screams Duke LaCrosse case. However, if he did contact via Instagram there will be evidence.  keep spinning. You have him guilty from the get go. You continued to focus of xx number of accusers vs 1 with the Duke case, despite me even posting several times to ignore the numbers and look at the whole case. You also didn't quote me where I pointed out the similarities. Your cherry picking to win your argument that he is guilty (despite not having all the evidence and ignoring "innocent until proven guilty") makes me think you might be an Alabama fan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:19:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:19:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 15 (or whatever it's up to this hour) different women vs having only one woman who, IIRC, had her "coworker" say she was lying is only part of it. There is also all the evidence the lawyer CLAIMS to have. Not to mention the Duke case was criminal while these, so far, are civil. It all adds up to this not being the same thing as the Duke case. That's not to say it proves Watson is guilty or anything, but the differences are pretty obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe for your next post you can regale us for the 87th time with your claims of how a case with 14+ different woman accusing someone is the same thing as 1 woman accusing someone. 14+ women have stories, because the lawyer for one woman solicited people to come forward and intimated that there was a possibility of getting paid to do so. You offer to pay for stories, you get them. The more people get solicited to say something, the more likely it is to be true? Watson may still be guilty, but that argument is still a fallacy outside the court of public opinion. Truth by popular vote! Lawyers’ jobs aren’t to produce the truth, their job is to produce an argument. If it happens to be true, that’s great, but it’s not a requirement. This is an interesting roarsach test. Some people immediately jump on the #metoo train, and some assume innocence. Neither have a solid case as yet. People use these massage therapists (whether legit or not) for the anonymity. Once you’re behind closed doors, no resulting story is verifiable. It seems that maybe Watson liked to get jerked off in hotel rooms by “massage therapists”. Plenty of them have been known to offer this service. Legit ones pack their shit and leave when asked to go too far. In either case, there are generally few pieces of evidence. Would a jerkoff therapist be the type to change their story to something more sensational with the promise of getting paid? Of course. Would someone who just left be tempted to embellish the story with the promise of getting paid? Yep. Would someone who was legitimately assaulted (probably a distant third in probability, but still possible) have nothing but a story and no real evidence? Sad, but also true. The 15 (or whatever it's up to this hour) different women vs having only one woman who, IIRC, had her "coworker" say she was lying is only part of it. There is also all the evidence the lawyer CLAIMS to have. Not to mention the Duke case was criminal while these, so far, are civil. It all adds up to this not being the same thing as the Duke case. That's not to say it proves Watson is guilty or anything, but the differences are pretty obvious. When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:22:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: keep spinning. You have him guilty from the get go. You continued to focus of xx number of accusers vs 1 with the Duke case, despite me even posting several times to ignore the numbers and look at the whole case. You also didn't quote me where I pointed out the similarities. Your cherry picking to win your argument that he is guilty (despite not having all the evidence and ignoring "innocent until proven guilty") makes me think you might be an Alabama fan.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. Considering this post was the first time you made the comparison and you posted it early on page 1 it's pretty obvious that wasn't your point. At least not then. As more people point out the fallacies in your logic you are attempting to move the goal posts. Quoted: So the attorney lives on the same street as the Texans owner. To me, having watched Watson play at Clemson, this screams Duke LaCrosse case. However, if he did contact via Instagram there will be evidence. keep spinning. You have him guilty from the get go. You continued to focus of xx number of accusers vs 1 with the Duke case, despite me even posting several times to ignore the numbers and look at the whole case. You also didn't quote me where I pointed out the similarities. Your cherry picking to win your argument that he is guilty (despite not having all the evidence and ignoring "innocent until proven guilty") makes me think you might be an Alabama fan.Now we can add "attacking strawmen" to you list of tactics. Point out where I said he was guilty. Go on. I'll wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:24:43 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? When did I talk about "30 years vs last year"? It shouldn't be hard to point out if I'm "obsessed" with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:31:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? Has he been found guilty? Has he been imprisoned? Has he even been suspended/fired? I don't see where Watson has been condemned yet. However, with the preponderance of evidence currently available to us, it is (quite obviously to some of us) more likely than not, that he is guilty of being a sexual predator. At the very least he is definitely guilty of soliciting prostitution. To tell people not to judge a person based on the facts currently available is just a red herring excuse. We aren't politicians who are trying to rush to change a law, we aren't a jury judging a man before his court date. We're a bunch of dudes online who can read between the lines, and look at the picture in front of us, and make a REASONABLE assumption about Deshaun based on current information. There is no reasonable way in which you could say we are being unreasonable to believe Watson may be a sexual predator when looking at the current information. The argument about constitution this and innocent until proven guilty that has no bearing in this current conversation because none of us are in a court room and none of us have any control on any of the peoples involved lives. Surely things could change, however the overwhelming amount of information available RIGHT NOW is heavily slanted to one side, so it is going to take a lot of new information on the other side to slide the scale back. Meanwhile, arguing people's innocence in other cases (Kavanaugh, Duke), that are not even REMOTELY similar, is a fallacious debate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:32:06 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When did I talk about "30 years vs last year"? It shouldn't be hard to point out if I'm "obsessed" with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? When did I talk about "30 years vs last year"? It shouldn't be hard to point out if I'm "obsessed" with it. When you quoted and agreed with DavidESM's post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:34:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. “Let’s throw as many claims out there as we can find, and see if anything sticks... people will remember the accusations, not that some of them may be false”. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:34:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has he been found guilty? Has he been imprisoned? Has he even been suspended/fired? I don't see where Watson has been condemned yet. However, with the preponderance of evidence currently available to us, it is (quite obviously to some of us) more likely than not, that he is guilty of being a sexual predator. At the very least he is definitely guilty of soliciting prostitution. To tell people not to judge a person based on the facts currently available is just a red herring excuse. We aren't politicians who are trying to rush to change a law, we aren't a jury judging a man before his court date. We're a bunch of dudes online who can read between the lines, and look at the picture in front of us, and make a REASONABLE assumption about Deshaun based on current information. There is no reasonable way in which you could say we are being unreasonable to believe Watson may be a sexual predator when looking at the current information. The argument about constitution this and innocent until proven guilty that has no bearing in this current conversation because none of us are in a court room and none of us have any control on any of the peoples involved lives. Surely things could change, however the overwhelming amount of information available RIGHT NOW is heavily slanted to one side, so it is going to take a lot of new information on the other side to slide the scale back. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? Has he been found guilty? Has he been imprisoned? Has he even been suspended/fired? I don't see where Watson has been condemned yet. However, with the preponderance of evidence currently available to us, it is (quite obviously to some of us) more likely than not, that he is guilty of being a sexual predator. At the very least he is definitely guilty of soliciting prostitution. To tell people not to judge a person based on the facts currently available is just a red herring excuse. We aren't politicians who are trying to rush to change a law, we aren't a jury judging a man before his court date. We're a bunch of dudes online who can read between the lines, and look at the picture in front of us, and make a REASONABLE assumption about Deshaun based on current information. There is no reasonable way in which you could say we are being unreasonable to believe Watson may be a sexual predator when looking at the current information. The argument about constitution this and innocent until proven guilty that has no bearing in this current conversation because none of us are in a court room and none of us have any control on any of the peoples involved lives. Surely things could change, however the overwhelming amount of information available RIGHT NOW is heavily slanted to one side, so it is going to take a lot of new information on the other side to slide the scale back. Look, I've said several times in this thread and the NFL thread that it looks really bad for Watson. I'm just saying that we should slow down for a second and wait for proof before deciding that he's guilty. Which he probably is, by the way. But is it really too much to ask to wait for proof before deciding for sure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:35:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:37:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. One of those is not like the other...  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:42:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you quoted and agreed with DavidESM's post. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Kavanaugh was and is innocent...Multiple accusers also as pointed out above. Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." You're obsessed with making these comparisons. 16 vs 1. 30 years vs last year. Is proof really something that's too much to ask for before condemning a man? When did I talk about "30 years vs last year"? It shouldn't be hard to point out if I'm "obsessed" with it. When you quoted and agreed with DavidESM's post. So your proof of how I'm "obsessed" with "30 years vs last year" is the following post: Quoted: But both cases had multiple accusers. That means the cases are similar and anyone who disagrees with that thinks "accusation = guilt" and they "don't believe in the constitution and our laws." So nowhere then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:46:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest Kavanaugh. 2-3 accusers from, what, 40 years ago? Accusers who can't even give basic information on the event. Don't remember where it was, when it was, what exactly happened. Zero evidence of any kind. No suits ever close to remotely being filed. Kavanaugh always categorically denied EVERYTHING involving the accusers. Duke. Single accuser with a story that was debunked by multiple witnesses present. Zero evidence of any kind. The prosecuting attorney who rushed to file charges was even disbarred and served jail time for his deceit. The players always categorically denied all accusations of rape. Watson. 16 suits, 24 accusers, all from the last year. 15 of the suits claim digital evidence including messages and phone calls. Every accuser gives explicit details, quotes, dates, times and locations along with their descriptions of events. Watson confirms he was hiring numerous women for massages, even when they aren't massage therapists. Watson confirms one of the accounts was a consensual sexual encounter. This is definitely apples to oranges. If you're considering them all to be apples because they are accusations of sexual assault of some form, you're talking about a huge fucking umbrella to cover EVERY sexual assault accusation ever made. When you look at the details of the accusations, the number of accusations, the amount of evidence in the accusations, the confirmation of certain events by the accused. They are not even remotely similar in how they are breaking down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:47:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. So you accuse me of getting my conversations confused in a weak attempt at ridicule, then you get your conversations confused. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:49:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kavanaugh. 2-3 accusers from, what, 40 years ago? Accusers who can't even give basic information on the event. Don't remember where it was, when it was, what exactly happened. Zero evidence of any kind. No suits ever close to remotely being filed. Kavanaugh always categorically denied EVERYTHING involving the accusers. Duke. Single accuser with a story that was debunked by multiple witnesses present. Zero evidence of any kind. The prosecuting attorney who rushed to file charges was even disbarred and served jail time for his deceit. The players always categorically denied all accusations of rape. Watson. 16 suits, 24 accusers, all from the last year. 15 of the suits claim digital evidence including messages and phone calls. Every accuser gives explicit details, quotes, dates, times and locations along with their descriptions of events. Watson confirms he was hiring numerous women for massages, even when they aren't massage therapists. Watson confirms one of the accounts was a consensual sexual encounter. This is definitely apples to oranges. If you're considering them all to be apples because they are accusations of sexual assault of some form, you're talking about a huge fucking umbrella to cover EVERY sexual assault accusation ever made. When you look at the details of the accusations, the number of accusations, the amount of evidence in the accusations, the confirmation of certain events by the accused. They are not even remotely similar in how they are breaking down. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest Kavanaugh. 2-3 accusers from, what, 40 years ago? Accusers who can't even give basic information on the event. Don't remember where it was, when it was, what exactly happened. Zero evidence of any kind. No suits ever close to remotely being filed. Kavanaugh always categorically denied EVERYTHING involving the accusers. Duke. Single accuser with a story that was debunked by multiple witnesses present. Zero evidence of any kind. The prosecuting attorney who rushed to file charges was even disbarred and served jail time for his deceit. The players always categorically denied all accusations of rape. Watson. 16 suits, 24 accusers, all from the last year. 15 of the suits claim digital evidence including messages and phone calls. Every accuser gives explicit details, quotes, dates, times and locations along with their descriptions of events. Watson confirms he was hiring numerous women for massages, even when they aren't massage therapists. Watson confirms one of the accounts was a consensual sexual encounter. This is definitely apples to oranges. If you're considering them all to be apples because they are accusations of sexual assault of some form, you're talking about a huge fucking umbrella to cover EVERY sexual assault accusation ever made. When you look at the details of the accusations, the number of accusations, the amount of evidence in the accusations, the confirmation of certain events by the accused. They are not even remotely similar in how they are breaking down. In kavanaugh’s case the accusations folded under scrutiny, yet were still pushed as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In this case, we still have no evidence, other than that we know there were interactions (which was never in dispute). We haven’t had any scrutiny applied to these accusers yet. Unlike some, I will reserve judgement until then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:50:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But is it really too much to ask to wait for proof before deciding for sure? I never decide "for sure". Nothing is every FINAL. My opinion can always be changed by future evidence. However we all make judgments based on what we know every day about numerous things. Today, my judgement is that Deshaun is, more likely than not, guilty of at least some of these accusations. I also believe there is a likely hood that at least a few of these women may have been willing participants in the sexual encounters which would make Watson not guilty of the accusation by those women, but does not remove the likely hood that he was soliciting these women intentionally, and was hiring them through Instagram because he believed the likely hood of them agreeing would be much higher than if he went to a professional. So. Recap. I currently believe Watson had sexual encounters with numerous women. I believe some were consensual. I believe some were likely paid extra for it. I also believe some were not willing participants and in those cases Watson crossed the line into criminal/deviant behavior with his actions. Who knows what I might believe tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:50:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you accuse me of getting my conversations confused in a weak attempt at ridicule, then you get your conversations confused. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. So you accuse me of getting my conversations confused in a weak attempt at ridicule, then you get your conversations confused. Got it. Comparing apples and oranges seems to be a running theme for this page.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:53:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comparing apples and oranges seems to be a running theme for this page. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. So you accuse me of getting my conversations confused in a weak attempt at ridicule, then you get your conversations confused. Got it. Comparing apples and oranges seems to be a running theme for this page. No part of my quote you posted there is untrue, so there’s that. Uh-but-that-was-different.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:58:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No part of my quote you posted there is untrue, so there’s that. Uh-but-that-was-different.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When did I compare it to the Duke case? Show me. The conversation you jumped into was specifically about the similarities between this case and the Duke care. If you weren't talking about it then my mistake for assuming you were referring to the topic of conversation to which you joined. So you accuse me of getting my conversations confused in a weak attempt at ridicule, then you get your conversations confused. Got it. Comparing apples and oranges seems to be a running theme for this page. No part of my quote you posted there is untrue, so there’s that. Uh-but-that-was-different.jpg Part of your quote that I posted is untrue? Well, we finally agree on something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 1:58:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In kavanaugh's case the accusations folded under scrutiny, yet were still pushed as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In this case, we still have no evidence, other than that we know there were interactions (which was never in dispute). We haven't had any scrutiny applied to these accusers yet. Unlike some, I will reserve judgement until then. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest Kavanaugh. 2-3 accusers from, what, 40 years ago? Accusers who can't even give basic information on the event. Don't remember where it was, when it was, what exactly happened. Zero evidence of any kind. No suits ever close to remotely being filed. Kavanaugh always categorically denied EVERYTHING involving the accusers. Duke. Single accuser with a story that was debunked by multiple witnesses present. Zero evidence of any kind. The prosecuting attorney who rushed to file charges was even disbarred and served jail time for his deceit. The players always categorically denied all accusations of rape. Watson. 16 suits, 24 accusers, all from the last year. 15 of the suits claim digital evidence including messages and phone calls. Every accuser gives explicit details, quotes, dates, times and locations along with their descriptions of events. Watson confirms he was hiring numerous women for massages, even when they aren't massage therapists. Watson confirms one of the accounts was a consensual sexual encounter. This is definitely apples to oranges. If you're considering them all to be apples because they are accusations of sexual assault of some form, you're talking about a huge fucking umbrella to cover EVERY sexual assault accusation ever made. When you look at the details of the accusations, the number of accusations, the amount of evidence in the accusations, the confirmation of certain events by the accused. They are not even remotely similar in how they are breaking down. In kavanaugh's case the accusations folded under scrutiny, yet were still pushed as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In this case, we still have no evidence, other than that we know there were interactions (which was never in dispute). We haven't had any scrutiny applied to these accusers yet. Unlike some, I will reserve judgement until then. So we can agree that Kavanaugh's case was politically motivated (and timing motivated) in order to manipulate public opinion, but none of the women pursued civil or criminal suits/charges. That alone puts these two instances in very separate categories unless you believe that these women have been paid/manipulated/gathered by the Texans/some other entity to manipulate Watson's value as an NFL player. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:07:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Buzbee reportedly said he would provide a copy of the NDA that Watson and his marketing manager repeatedly insisted that Jane Doe (and others) sign after (and sometimes before) massage sessions. The one I reported yesterday that she refused to sign (the blackmail Jane Doe).
Edit: He also stated he appreciated Hardin's (Watson's attorney) professionalism and kind words of support for victims, but suggested that there are likely many facts, that will be in their filings, that Hardin might not yet even be aware of from his client. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:14:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Buzbee reportedly said he would provide a copy of the NDA that Watson and his marketing manager repeatedly insisted that Jane Doe (and others) sign after (and sometimes before) massage sessions. The one I reported yesterday that she refused to sign (the blackmail Jane Doe). Edit: He also stated he appreciated Hardin's (Watson's attorney) professionalism and kind words of support for victims, but suggested that there are likely many facts, that will be in their filings, that Hardin might not yet even be aware of from his client. Speaking of Hardin: do we know if he is the one that's actually handling the PR? It might explain some the missteps they've been making because while he no doubt has a ton of experience in the court room, having a 79 year old lawyer act as your PR manager, crisis adviser, etc in a situation like this might not be the best move. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:15:16 PM EDT
[#38]
ProFootballTalk's counter to Watson's Attorney's statement. Link
Summary of the criticisms: 1: Hardin criticizing Buzbee for not revealing names. Watson and his attorney should be able to know the names of every masseuse just from the information (including dates and locations) in the suits. 2: Hardin never denies sexual activity occurred during the massages. Instead he implies that consensual sex was occurring. 3: Difficult to say that one fabricated claim (the blackmailer) calls into question the other claims. Impossible to undermine the other 15+ claims with one consensual sexual contact. 4: Bringing up the therapists who call Watson a gentleman. Didn't reveal any of THEIR identities or the fact they were paid by Watson. 5: Hardin criticizes Buzbee for the circus atmosphere causing people to rush to judgement, but it is actually a very successful move as far as a civil suit and they will sway people to the accusers side, especially since Watson's camp has fallen silent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:17:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speaking of Hardin: do we know if he is the one that's actually handling the PR? It might explain some the missteps they've been making because while he no doubt has a ton of experience in the court room, having a 79 year old lawyer act as your PR manager, crisis adviser, etc in a situation like this might not be the best move. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Buzbee reportedly said he would provide a copy of the NDA that Watson and his marketing manager repeatedly insisted that Jane Doe (and others) sign after (and sometimes before) massage sessions. The one I reported yesterday that she refused to sign (the blackmail Jane Doe). Edit: He also stated he appreciated Hardin's (Watson's attorney) professionalism and kind words of support for victims, but suggested that there are likely many facts, that will be in their filings, that Hardin might not yet even be aware of from his client. Speaking of Hardin: do we know if he is the one that's actually handling the PR? It might explain some the missteps they've been making because while he no doubt has a ton of experience in the court room, having a 79 year old lawyer act as your PR manager, crisis adviser, etc in a situation like this might not be the best move. Hardin was NEWLY hired by Watson since the suits were filed (IIRC). It was a different attorney who dealt with Buzbee during the private meeting for a settlement before the first suit was filed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:24:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Roddy apologizing for his initial statement.
For those who missed his first one, he hasn't deleted it:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:29:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hardin was NEWLY hired by Watson since the suits were filed (IIRC). It was a different attorney who dealt with Buzbee during the private meeting for a settlement before the first suit was filed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Buzbee reportedly said he would provide a copy of the NDA that Watson and his marketing manager repeatedly insisted that Jane Doe (and others) sign after (and sometimes before) massage sessions. The one I reported yesterday that she refused to sign (the blackmail Jane Doe). Edit: He also stated he appreciated Hardin's (Watson's attorney) professionalism and kind words of support for victims, but suggested that there are likely many facts, that will be in their filings, that Hardin might not yet even be aware of from his client. Speaking of Hardin: do we know if he is the one that's actually handling the PR? It might explain some the missteps they've been making because while he no doubt has a ton of experience in the court room, having a 79 year old lawyer act as your PR manager, crisis adviser, etc in a situation like this might not be the best move. Hardin was NEWLY hired by Watson since the suits were filed (IIRC). It was a different attorney who dealt with Buzbee during the private meeting for a settlement before the first suit was filed. I mean who is handling the public statements that, IMO, are obvious lies. Like how Watson "never treated ANY woman with anything but the utmost respect" and how the "only reason" Watson sought out these woman was because he couldn't see his regular masseuse due to COVID. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:31:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Mike Florio (who used to have a law practice) advises that Watson should immediately seek mediation with accusers. Suggests since they don't want their identities revealed publicly, may be able to settle this in mediation. Brings up Hardin's black mailer reveal as not being beneficial but rather potentially harmful by revealing Watson was having sexual contact with masseuses. Says it would be better to deal with it, pay it out, and move forward.
Full segment: Youtube Edit: Great quote about what the NFL might do with Watson after mentioning Elliot and others then later talking about Peterson. "They're going to do whatever they want to do, and we don't know, and they don't tell you in advance, what they are going to do." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:36:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean who is handling the public statements that, IMO, are obvious lies. Like how Watson "never treated ANY woman with anything but the utmost respect" and how the "only reason" Watson sought out these woman was because he couldn't see his regular masseuse due to COVID. The respect comment was on Watson's Twitter, and somehow I don't think he has a social media team like Tom Brady does. I get the feeling Watson is controlling that Twitter, but potentially posted with advice of someone. I think the second part about his regular masseuse not being available was actually revealed by TMZ or some such from "several sources" who claim that is Watson said (about Covid) when he reached out to friends and teammates for recommendations in finding new masseuses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:42:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we can agree that Kavanaugh's case was politically motivated (and timing motivated) in order to manipulate public opinion, but none of the women pursued civil or criminal suits/charges. That alone puts these two instances in very separate categories unless you believe that these women have been paid/manipulated/gathered by the Texans/some other entity to manipulate Watson's value as an NFL player. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/4/23/330973-14929856179842455.jpg Wanting to compare a couple of decades old accusers, with no evidence of any kind, who only made allegations but never filed a suit of any kind, to 24 accusers from the last 12 months who all have evidence of private interactions with Deshaun while Deshaun's own attorney verifies Watson seeking out numerous women on Instagram and having had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the women. These two incidents couldn't be any less similar. Both are based on stories by accusers. Both involve disputed versions of encounters with unverifiable claims of sexual misconduct. Both are attempts to sway public opinion as a legal strategy. Not exactly the same, true, but not exactly apples->oranges as you suggest Kavanaugh. 2-3 accusers from, what, 40 years ago? Accusers who can't even give basic information on the event. Don't remember where it was, when it was, what exactly happened. Zero evidence of any kind. No suits ever close to remotely being filed. Kavanaugh always categorically denied EVERYTHING involving the accusers. Duke. Single accuser with a story that was debunked by multiple witnesses present. Zero evidence of any kind. The prosecuting attorney who rushed to file charges was even disbarred and served jail time for his deceit. The players always categorically denied all accusations of rape. Watson. 16 suits, 24 accusers, all from the last year. 15 of the suits claim digital evidence including messages and phone calls. Every accuser gives explicit details, quotes, dates, times and locations along with their descriptions of events. Watson confirms he was hiring numerous women for massages, even when they aren't massage therapists. Watson confirms one of the accounts was a consensual sexual encounter. This is definitely apples to oranges. If you're considering them all to be apples because they are accusations of sexual assault of some form, you're talking about a huge fucking umbrella to cover EVERY sexual assault accusation ever made. When you look at the details of the accusations, the number of accusations, the amount of evidence in the accusations, the confirmation of certain events by the accused. They are not even remotely similar in how they are breaking down. In kavanaugh's case the accusations folded under scrutiny, yet were still pushed as an attempt to manipulate public opinion. In this case, we still have no evidence, other than that we know there were interactions (which was never in dispute). We haven't had any scrutiny applied to these accusers yet. Unlike some, I will reserve judgement until then. So we can agree that Kavanaugh's case was politically motivated (and timing motivated) in order to manipulate public opinion, but none of the women pursued civil or criminal suits/charges. That alone puts these two instances in very separate categories unless you believe that these women have been paid/manipulated/gathered by the Texans/some other entity to manipulate Watson's value as an NFL player. This is highly doubtful, but possible, I suppose... unless the Texans knew about this all along and sat on it as long as he was “their guy”. Again, that’s a little conspiracy-ish for my taste, though. The timing of this would make for an odd coincidence, admittedly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:43:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now we can add "attacking strawmen" to you list of tactics. Point out where I said he was guilty. Go on. I'll wait. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Majority in this thread already have him as guilty without knowing all the facts, which was my point in comparing this to the Duke LaCrosse case. Considering this post was the first time you made the comparison and you posted it early on page 1 it's pretty obvious that wasn't your point. At least not then. As more people point out the fallacies in your logic you are attempting to move the goal posts. Quoted: So the attorney lives on the same street as the Texans owner. To me, having watched Watson play at Clemson, this screams Duke LaCrosse case. However, if he did contact via Instagram there will be evidence. keep spinning. You have him guilty from the get go. You continued to focus of xx number of accusers vs 1 with the Duke case, despite me even posting several times to ignore the numbers and look at the whole case. You also didn't quote me where I pointed out the similarities. Your cherry picking to win your argument that he is guilty (despite not having all the evidence and ignoring "innocent until proven guilty") makes me think you might be an Alabama fan.Now we can add "attacking strawmen" to you list of tactics. Point out where I said he was guilty. Go on. I'll wait. While you don't use the specific word "guilty", you're insinuation is not missed by anyone... Quoted: Yeah, it looks like perhaps his kink was the specific situation itself. Sure, he could have hired hookers to roleplay it, but maybe "pretend" wasn't enough for him to get his rocks off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:45:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mike Florio (who used to have a law practice) advises that Watson should immediately seek mediation with accusers. Suggests since they don't want their identities revealed publicly, may be able to settle this in mediation. Brings up Hardin's black mailer reveal as not being beneficial but rather potentially harmful by revealing Watson was having sexual contact with masseuses. Says it would be better to deal with it, pay it out, and move forward. Full segment: Youtube That's typically the easy route for any person or business with money, which is what makes false allegations such an appealing prospect for some people. Win or lose, your reputation will have already been dragged through the mud by the accusers and likely the media. Only a small fraction will know if you win your case, and an even smaller fraction will know that you truly were innocent instead of just thinking the judge/jury was biased or that you won via some form of technicality. It's unfortunate because it's become so common we immediately are forced to wonder "is this true or is it a cash grab?" And to be clear I'm not saying these are false. To repeat myself from before, both outcomes are possible here, even if one currently appears more likely than the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:46:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is highly doubtful, but possible, I suppose... unless the Texans knew about this all along and sat on it as long as he was "their guy". Again, that's a little conspiracy-ish for my taste, though. Of all the conspiracies mentioned so far, that is by far the most believable, but would also rely on believing that the Texans would rather destroy their own investment then trade him or let him sit out. I don't have any doubt in my mind that SOMEONE else knew what was going on. One of the accusers said she had other players contacting her afterwords on a referral from "Big D". And with "several sources" saying Watson was asking people how to find masseuses, I'm sure at least one of them was aware of what Watson was actually looking for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:49:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mike Florio (who used to have a law practice) advises that Watson should immediately seek mediation with accusers. Suggests since they don't want their identities revealed publicly, may be able to settle this in mediation. Brings up Hardin's black mailer reveal as not being beneficial but rather potentially harmful by revealing Watson was having sexual contact with masseuses. Says it would be better to deal with it, pay it out, and move forward. Full segment: Youtube Edit: Great quote about what the NFL might do with Watson after mentioning Elliot and others then later talking about Peterson. "They're going to do whatever they want to do, and we don't know, and they don't tell you in advance, what they are going to do." If he is guilty and knows he's guilty, then I absolutely think that would be the best course of action for him. He'd still take a HUGE hit, but not as bad as if all the details come out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:50:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's typically the easy route for any person or business with money, which is what makes false allegations such an appealing prospect for some people. Win or lose, your reputation will have already been dragged through the mud by the accusers and likely the media. Only a small fraction will know if you win your case, and an even smaller fraction will know that you truly were innocent instead of just thinking the judge/jury was biased or that you won via some form of technicality. It's unfortunate because it's become so common we immediately are forced to wonder "is this true or is it a cash grab?" And to be clear I'm not saying these are false. To repeat myself from before, both outcomes are possible here, even if one currently appears more likely than the other. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Mike Florio (who used to have a law practice) advises that Watson should immediately seek mediation with accusers. Suggests since they don't want their identities revealed publicly, may be able to settle this in mediation. Brings up Hardin's black mailer reveal as not being beneficial but rather potentially harmful by revealing Watson was having sexual contact with masseuses. Says it would be better to deal with it, pay it out, and move forward. Full segment: Youtube That's typically the easy route for any person or business with money, which is what makes false allegations such an appealing prospect for some people. Win or lose, your reputation will have already been dragged through the mud by the accusers and likely the media. Only a small fraction will know if you win your case, and an even smaller fraction will know that you truly were innocent instead of just thinking the judge/jury was biased or that you won via some form of technicality. It's unfortunate because it's become so common we immediately are forced to wonder "is this true or is it a cash grab?" And to be clear I'm not saying these are false. To repeat myself from before, both outcomes are possible here, even if one currently appears more likely than the other. Your points are true and valid. But just to provide a counter, it is also a resource for the accused party to make the talk die down quickly. To end the daily updates from their lawyers and the circus parade. Pay them off, get the confidentiality clauses signed, and try and put it as far behind you as possible, as quickly as possible. So it has benefits for accused parties as well, especially if they know they are guilty of what is being accused. Edit: Florio later on speaks about once you get those clauses signed, the accusers are barred from speaking to the NFL as well, the NFL has no subpoena power to force them to speak against the clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2021 2:51:17 PM EDT
[#50]
A 25 y/o QB with millions coming in....why didn't he just hire hookers?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
