My friend got arrested for drawing on the sidewalk with chalk today, so I really feel like police involvement still doesn't mean anything.
I don't know what you're not getting and I'm really not sure how to restate my point in any new fashion. I can answer your question though: Yes, it is possible that the flight crew overreacted. Is it possible the stewardess saw his mammoth dong on the Internets and hoped bringing the police over would give her a chance to complete her dream; her, the handcuffs, Santonio Holmes, and the "Occupied" light in the lavatory? Sure, that could be too. What I'm talking about is what is likely. Holmes hasn't proven himself to be a high character/well-behaved guy. It's far more likely that he acted up and caused an issue (even if it's a minor incident that IN AND OF ITSELF means nothing) yet again. Actually, this other quote of yours will help me say something new. This is exactly the same type of logic (read rationalization) that I employed when another NY WR proved to be a dumbass. I tried rationalizing what Burress did by pointing out that Steve Smith was mugged the week before. I tried telling myself that he just got a new deal and was nervous about his money. I tried telling myself that lots of NFL players carry guns and Burress was just unlucky. I tried telling myself that Bloomberg (Jet Fan) was just out to screw the Giants over. Okay, maybe I haven't unconvinced myself of that last one. The fact of the matter is that there is a precedent that is well-established by this point. Any ONE of these incidents can be overlooked, but not when you put them all together. Burress being late to meetings habitually could be overlooked. Burress playing hooky to drive his kid to school can be accepted. Even Burress swearing at the coach can be stomached. But when you put all of these things together it paints a picture that isn't particularly appealing. Burress' actions eventually forced the, in my mind, negative point of view to be the one I employed because (SHOCK ALERT!) guys that find themselves on police blotters frequently tend to be bad guys more than they tend to be unlucky/stupid yet benevolent. Look, I'm glad you have a good feeling about Holmes going forward and you're obviously very set in your opinion and not interested in changing it. That's all well and good, but don't try to pass off your own personal sentiment and emotion as the only logical/rational conclusion. You're tempting to argue with because you believe that only your way of thinking makes sense and it's everyone else that must be wrong. Hell, you could be right and Holmes might never see his name mentioned in a negative way. If that's the case I'll buy you a beer and apologize for daring to disagree with you. Until then I'll take the perspective that I've espoused heretofore and I'll stick with it because it's based off accepting past incidents at face value as opposed to reading in to them and rationalizing them (sort of an Ockham's Razor type of approach, if you will (you probably won't)). Disagreeing with my view doesn't necessarily make you any more correct than I am for disagreeing with you.
You're equating bringing a loaded gun into a nightclub with the safety off and not holstered to a guy falling asleep with his Ipod's earphones in his ear??? Are you seriously on something?
No, I didn't. Read it again. I equated his logic now to my logic then. In this analogy iPodgate with Holmes would be about the same as Burress taking an unannounced vacation day so he can play chauffeur and drive his son to school. The only commonality is that we're dealing with the mentality (rationale) of two NY fans regarding two NY WRs that are none too bright. I hope this clears things up for you a bit, I wouldn't want to say anything as ridiculous as what you attempted to conclude. I'm argumentative and kind of a dick, but I'm not retarded :beer: oh, and i've been drinking too
You're equating this to Burress? Come on, man. At this point you sound more like a scorned lover than anything. And yes, you are comparing the two events, because that is where the rationale comes from. If he tried to bring a gun on the plane, fine, he deserves to get suspended. If he tried to physically attack the fight attendant, then yea, he it's consistent with a pattern of criminality leading back to his rookie season. He got indignant and said, "I would rather hear it form the cops than hear it from you." He heard it from the cops, he listened to the cops. He learned his fucking lesson on this one and there is literally no harm done. The only reason the police were called was because he wanted them to be called. If you are trying to prove he is an idiot: He's a profession football player. No shit. Fuck it, I'm done arguing this point. If he does something that is actually illegal that leads to someone other than him calling the cops, then I'll get concerned about his ability to stay away from another suspension.
The only thing I sought to compare was the mentality you've showcased to the mentality I showcased. There are similarities even if you don't want them to be. The two incidents themselves could not be more different, I had thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not trying to make that ridiculous leap of logic. I think this incident is a sign that other mistakes are likely to follow, and I don;t find that leap to be so hard to make. You don't. Ok. Good talk.
Good counterpoint, you've clearly won this argument through your use of superior logic and reasoning.
I'm waiting for a counter-argument consisting of two fair points. So far I've only heard 1. Hey guys, this wasn't really so bad!!1!!one! 2. I'm still happy about Santonio being a Jet. As for as number 2 goes, I"ll say, again, you are more than welcome to think whatever the hell you want. I doubt many people come to the Internet looking to have their thoughts and opinions genuinely challenged and, potentially, replaced. Once again, in and of itself this is a non-issue and it's stupid that we even have to talk this much about it. Despite this fact, however, here we are wasting bandwidth. If you choose to think that this is an isolated incident where people just got too excited, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I think this is just the latest, albeit least malevolent, stupid event in a string of stupid events. We can agree to disagree here, because I doubt anything productive can come from anything new being said.
