Given the number of things you’ve deflected and changed the subject on when I’ve asked them, how about you just answer my question first.

Ay yi yi. A) Why do you think I put promise in quotes above? B) I’m not sure what you think I’m insisting. Again, go back to the very first sentence I wrote on this thread to see what I’m insisting.

C’mon man, seriously? I assume now you’re just trolling.

Lol, not a binding promise. I went back and edited that after I posted it, but I didn’t actually think you’d be so gung ho that you’d take the very first sentence I wrote after trying to find some common ground and find some semantic thing to quibble about.

How is that imprecise language? He literally says “I’m making a decision to do X. If things change, I’ll reconsider this decision.” I’m not “buying” that explanation- I’m literally reading what he wrote and interpreting it honestly. I gave you the direct quote. Look up the press release. It’s part of an entire…

That quote is directly addressed in the article above. I’m not sure why you’re trying to use it as if it means that he’s saying he’ll reconsider the determination on whether or not to prosecute. Here’s the context of that particular sentence. “The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of…

“If you buy it, you’re an idiot.” Who is buying it? 

*sigh* I honestly should’ve checked your user name before responding to the first comment since I’ve had to deal with you before. Listen, if you had actually wanted to engage in the subject I’d be all for it. But you’re not actually responding to my comments, nor are you responding to the actual quotes or issues…

ok

Those would be absurd, but those aren’t his assertions. He makes a different argument than the one the author of this piece puts forward. He’s not saying the press release is somehow the bar to prosecution. He’s saying the promises made in the press release raise significant legal issues if broken. Nobody is claiming…

I’m not sure how this can be interpreted to him being on the Cosby team. The timeline seems to be this: 1) He promises not to prosecute Cosby; this was due to the reasonable determination that a) there wasn’t enough evidence to obtain a conviction, and b) so long as criminal prosecution was possible Cosby could invoke…

And Tucci! I will not sit idly by and allow y’all to attack a movie with Stanley Tucci in it! I would watch that man watch paint dry for 2 hours.

You’re missing out. The Core is pure crap, but it has Stanley Tucci. If you’re not willing to sit through crap to watch Tucci do his thing then you’re not living life to its fullest.

Y’all are crazy. Butler makes exactly the kind of crap that is fun to watch and laugh about later.

c) I haven’t looked this up in a while, but I’m not quite sure that top 3 picks typically get $10k/year for their shoe deals. Sure, making your own shoe is more badass than that (I guess? Maybe?), but I seem to recall reading about 7 figure deals from adidas, nike, etc., for Ball.

How is 124 attempts over nearly half a season a small sample size? Do they have to play the entire season before you’ll allow people to make a claim about the kind of year anyone is having? It’s ironic that you attack people for using a small sample size and then claim that they shouldn’t have run the ball based off…

“But trying to drop the mic after said bad take makes you look like a smarmy douche.”

Good luck with this. KC lost, which is all the proof some people need that the strategy was terrible. Of course, the evidence that it was actually a good idea is irrelevant, so you can’t win this one. I’ll never understand the people who look at an outcome to determine if a decision was a good idea in the moment, but…

How old are most of the participants in this stuff? A lot of this sounds like kids being a-holes to one another. Obviously, the death threats should be fully prosecuted. The other stuff reminds me of the kind of nonsense guys would do and say to each other when they’d have beef in high school or when we are all in…