No, it just high lights how naive your position is. There were no good guys in this mess. Nobody. Not IK, not Geno, none of his detractors nor his supporters. Anything you hear out of the Jets is corporate bullspeak to bury an embarrasing organizational incident. If you've ever worked in corporate America you'd understand. You can choose to ignore the rumors or side comments, that's your prerogative. Don't tell the rest of us it's wrong or that the "mountain of evidence" supports the Geno side of this story. It's naive. _
But, this is just a silly oversimplification that you have no way of supporting with any evidence or logically sound argument. I'm not arguing that the Jets don't play the standard media game that all corporations/business entities play. I'm pointing out that every situation is different and that your "put out the fire" rationale is flawed in this instance. Also, I don't think Geno was a "good guy," I just think it's pretty obvious from everything that has been said about the incident that the other guy is/was a hothead. There are times when rumors have a basis in legitimacy and there are times when they really don't. There just really isn't much to support the notion that Geno didn't get sucker punched. We can quibble about the intricacies of what that phrase means to you, but we can't quibble with how the Jets handled the situation, nor can we quibble with what the people who were there had to say about the incident.[/QUOTE]
But, I explained right away that: A) I wasn't even aware of what the full quote was, and B) Much more importantly, the reason I feel the way that I do has MUCH more to do with a combination of quotes from radio interviews with the GM, quotes from various players, and the decisive manner with which the Jets handled the situation.
Educate yourself before you quote nonsense. And don't get your panties in a twist when someone suggests you are quoting nonsense. _
But again, I addressed this hours ago: The Bowles quote has very little to do with why I think Geno got sucker punched (although, once again, I think it is telling that he didn't differentiate between being sucker punched and being cold cocked, as you so adamantly and desperately attempt to do). The Bowles quote doesn't mean that much. You are making too much of it.
Again, you haven't responded to my critique of your point of view in any meaningful way. You are obsessing over half a sentence (a sentence which doesn't even support your point of view) from Bowles and obsessing even further over a supposed distinction between being sucker punched and cold cocked. Neither one is central to my argument . . . and yet, you still haven't adequately explained how the Jets doing what they decided to do was "putting out the fire."
I pointed out your nonsense and you've been bitching and moaning and defending and obsessing ever since I pointed out your nonsense. Let it go. You're never going to get it. _
You're the one that was whining because I called your characterization as nonsense. YOU started spiraling out of control after that. Give it up. _
LOL, no. I made an argument. You quoted an innocent misuse of a half quote (a quote which, amusingly enough, doesn't even support your point of view) and essentially ignored the crux of my argument, all while repeatedly calling me naive and reminding us all that "we are men" (well, except for the "naive pussies" among us) and not children. You still haven't really defended your position. You have a lot of witty flare in your posts, but no real substance. You are trying too hard to be cool, hip and in the know. But, your brashness only highlights your unwillingness to address your fallacies, it doesn't actually hide them.
But, I explained why my point of view wasn't nonsense - quote or no quote - hours ago. And then, you spent three pages recycling buzz words like "naive," all while ignoring the inconvenient fact that your argument doesn't make much sense.
Geezuz fuck you're dumber than pcl. Holy crap. Geno was not sucker punched. Full stop. They rest of your bullshit is agenda driven bullshit, just like mine. He wasn't sucker punched. It's nonsense. Half quoting Bowles is nonsense. Have fun spinning your wheels. _
Again, the incivility doesn't impress anyone who is actually paying attention. But, how do you know this? What amuses me more than anything else is that you keep ignoring the fact that, in the quote you keep harping about, Bowles made NO DISTINCTION between being "cold cocked" and being "sucker punched." A lot of people wouldn't. I'm one of them. Apparently, so is the head coach of the Jets. You can pretend that your definition of being "sucker punched" is somehow more well-established then mine, but, of course, it isn't. Your argument pertaining to that quote is all semantics. There's nothing there. I honestly don't have an agenda. I don't even like Geno Smith and I was on record as wanting him benched after the loss to the Lions last season (You can go back and find my posts). In all sincerity, it just sounds to me like he got into an argument with a hothead.
I could careless about his public personality all I care about are wins. I'll leave that shit to people like you.
