Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 363

Thread: Saints "May" Be Disciplined for Bounty Program

  1. #221
    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383761]Notice how Grickhead, this trolling clown, posted this allegation hours ago and when presented with the facts, runs away like the coward he is. It is easy to make alleagtions on someone's reputation when you hide behind the computer.

    So, I wanted to amuse myself and check out this clown a$$ troll's source. It is a Boston-based blogger. You can't make this sh!t up. LMAO. Enough said. From the blogger's own website. :yes::D

    [I]Pundit Review was a blog before there was even a word ‘blog’. The site started in December 1999 by Kevin Whalen as an outlet for a political junkie and over time has morphed into a hybrid blog-radio show. For more than six years, Pundit Review has broadcast a weekly show on Boston’s 50,000-watt talk station WRKO.

    Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin, and until August 2008, Gregg Jackson, gave voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. This unique show continues bring the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 6-9pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

    The Pundit Review Radio podcast was a Weblog Awards finalist in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.[/I][/QUOTE]

    LMAO!!!

    Listen, these trolls can't troll if you don't feed into it...let them deny the pats cheated...who cares...we as well as the rest of anyone remotely paying attention knows they did....

    whatever they say to me is like a little baby stomping their feet whining "but mommy, that's not what happened and jimmy did it too!!!!"

  2. #222
    A small mind needs to resort to name calling in a debate. Clearly you don't know the difference between insulting and debating.

    The quotes below prove that what you like to do best is bait rival fans so you can then try to be the internet tough guy bully, the pure definition of a troll. You sir, are the biggest troll on this site and bring discussions to a level shared only bt the least common denominator. GFY Troll.

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383659]Troll

    Stop being an a$$ clown like Grickhead and some of your other troll friends. [/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383664], STFU and go away troll.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383668]Troll,

    LMAO.

    Stop trying to look smart because you illustrate otherwise.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383672]Here we go again.

    These trolls are so stupid. .[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383687]Thanks for proving what a dumba$$ you are -- something i figured out from our previous discussion.

    :D[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383702]No dopey troll. :D[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383706]:Thanks for proving what a dumba$$ you are -- something i figured out from our previous discussion.

    [/I][/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383710]No surprise. I would do the same too if I were you to prevent gettting schooled again and looking stupid, again.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383761]Notice how Grickhead, this trolling clown, posted this allegation hours ago and when presented with the facts, runs away like the coward he is. It is easy to make alleagtions on someone's reputation when you hide behind the computer.

    So, I wanted to amuse myself and check out this clown a$$ troll's source. It is a Boston-based blogger. You can't make this sh!t up. LMAO. Enough said. From the blogger's own website. :yes::D

    [I]Pundit Review was a blog before there was even a word ‘blog’. The site started in December 1999 by Kevin Whalen as an outlet for a political junkie and over time has morphed into a hybrid blog-radio show. For more than six years, Pundit Review has broadcast a weekly show on Boston’s 50,000-watt talk station WRKO.

    Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin, and until August 2008, Gregg Jackson, gave voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. This unique show continues bring the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 6-9pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

    The Pundit Review Radio podcast was a Weblog Awards finalist in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.[/I][/QUOTE]

    APL,

    I'm not here to amuse your warped hobby of throwing insults around and making up facts that don't exist. Here you are claiming that your words on a sports message board have more validity than a noted blogger? Why should anyone believe you over a blog that has been aired for years on one of the largest radio stations in the 10 largest media market in the US? Why is a blog an unreliable source merely due to its form?

    And for the record, I didn't run and hide anywhere. I went out with a few friends to watch the Celtics beat the Knicks in a terrific game, with Rondo having an historic day. Far more enjoyable wasting an entire day going tit-for-tat with you and your uninformed butt buddies.

    Its laughable that all you post is worse than you accuse rival fans of doing, yet you sit on a high horse when you live in the muck. I'll await your next conditioned response, like a lowly Pavlov dog, to Go F myself, troll, and you could care less what I think of you (when you really mean you could NOT care less)
    Last edited by GronkWelkhead; 03-04-2012 at 06:50 PM.

  3. #223
    [QUOTE=GronkWelkhead;4383826]A small mind needs to resort to name calling in a debate. Clearly you don't know the difference between insulting and debating.

    The quotes below prove that what you like to do best is bait rival fans so you can then try to be the internet tough guy bully, the pure definition of a troll. You sir, are the biggest troll on this site and bring discussions to a level shared only bt the least common denominator. GFY Troll.[/QUOTE]


    your pathetic act is as old as SAR's. (sorry SAR didn't mean to compare you to this guy).

    you come on a Jets message board and constantly throw around "facts" then make the above whiny passive aggressive type of statement when your BS is deflated and someone rubs your face in it. He doesn't need to bait, you bust right through the door without any "bait".

    i for one am bored with you and from the looks of it the majority of others are as well.

    FWIW, he's not calling you names he's calling you by appropriate observations. If you act like/are what he is saying then what he's saying is probably more factual then anything you've put forth on this board.
    Last edited by TurkJetFan; 03-04-2012 at 06:51 PM.

  4. #224
    He called you a troll and a dumb ass...

    Are your feelings really hurt? Grown men acting like chicks on a message board... Way to go fellas :zzz:

  5. #225
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4383835]He called you a troll and a dumb ass...

    Are your feelings really hurt? Grown men acting like chicks on a message board... Way to go fellas :zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Actually, most of the quoted posts weren't directed at me. And no, I'd have to care about him to have it hurt my feelings. Just illustrating that he's a one note wonder and a troll on his own teams message board. Most good posters here see him for what he is, so in that respect I guess, my post is of little use.

  6. #226
    [QUOTE=GronkWelkhead;4383843]Actually, most of the quoted posts weren't directed at me. And no, I'd have to care about him to have it hurt my feelings. Just illustrating that he's a one note wonder and a troll on his own teams message board. Most good posters here see him for what he is, so in that respect I guess, my post is of little use.[/QUOTE]

    Grickhead,

    While most of my posts in this thread were directed at Robo Pats troll, trust me, you are the biggest troll of all.

    For a perfect illustration, you make a statement which is a bold face lie -- you made it up. Your best source is a Boston blogger providing his opinion-- who gives a crap?

    Yet, when I cite the Federal agency that regulates all Federal campaigns, provide the link where anyone can review their site and see that former Sen. Specter violated no campaign finance laws as you alleged, you disappear like the troll that you are. As I correctly predicted, you will then reappear later and try to change the subject. Boom! Congrats for proving me right.

    Just in case you need to be reminded about my post from earlier, here you go (page 8) of this thread:

    [I]I know you NE trolls have difficulty comprehending but as I expalined to the other misinformed Pats troll in January, one has nothing to do with the other.

    Furthermore, you are a liar. Specter never broke any campaign finance laws. instead of citing some b/s website, here's the source -- the government agency that oversees all federal campign finance laws (ww.fec.gov). Every action against a Federal candidate taken by the agency is public information. Please cite when this agency accused Specter of breaking any campaign laws?

    As for Comcast being his major contributor over a 30-year distinguished career, so freaking what?????? News flash dope, Comcast is based in Philadelphia, PA. Specter was a Senator from Pennsylvania. Who is the Senator that gets the most support from Wall Street....shockingly, Schumer (NY). Who is the Senator that gets the most support from Hollywood, shockingly, Feinstein (CA); who is the Senator that gets the most support from the oil and gas industry, shockingly, Cronyin (TX). Each Senator represents the interests of his/her respective state. It goes without saying that they will protect, rightly so, the major employers in their states.

    For someone almost twice my age, you sure are dumb to very obvious facts a 20 year old should know. You must have had a very limited education.....actually, that explains plenty. [/I]

  7. #227
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,737
    Am I the only one that is sick of this entire conversation now.

    Pat "fans" are not going to concede anything with Spygate. You are basically asking them to admit that they are "fans" of a fraud. Basically telling them there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

  8. #228
    [QUOTE=TurkJetFan;4383828]your pathetic act is as old as SAR's. (sorry SAR didn't mean to compare you to this guy).

    you come on a Jets message board and constantly throw around "facts" then make the above whiny passive aggressive type of statement when your BS is deflated and someone rubs your face in it. He doesn't need to bait, you bust right through the door without any "bait".

    i for one am bored with you and from the looks of it the majority of others are as well.

    FWIW, he's not calling you names he's calling you by appropriate observations. If you act like/are what he is saying then what he's saying is probably more factual then anything you've put forth on this board.[/QUOTE]

    Turk,

    +400 Trillion.

    Yet, the troll continues to claim to speak for the board. He's just to dumb to realize that like me, many others are tired of his trolling b/s. I can certainly understand opposing views. And not all trolls act like Grickhead. For example, you can have a decent discussion with PatriotReign.

    Some of these trolls are here to only stir the pot. I can't wait for Tammy to leave. I bet Grickhead and the others will disappear as well. Watch.

  9. #229
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4383887]Am I the only one that is sick of this entire conversation now.

    Pat "fans" are not going to concede anything with Spygate. You are basically asking them to admit that they are "fans" of a fraud. Basically telling them there is no such thing as Santa Claus.[/QUOTE]

    I hear you. But these trolls need to be put in their place. My original post on this subject was not even directed at these NE trolls. Yet, Grickhead and AFCE jump in head first as always. Seems Jets fans cannot even express their own opinion on a Jets fan site without these viral infection from aforementioned trolls.

  10. #230
    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383886]Grickhead,

    While most of my posts in this thread were directed at Robo Pats troll, trust me, you are the biggest troll of all.

    For a perfect illustration, you make a statement which is a bold face lie -- you made it up. Your best source is a Boston blogger providing his opinion-- who gives a crap?

    Yet, when I cite the Federal agency that regulates all Federal campaigns, provide the link where anyone can review their site and see that former Sen. Specter violated no campaign finance laws as you alleged, you disappear like the troll that you are. As I correctly predicted, you will then reappear later and try to change the subject. Boom! Congrats for proving me right.

    Just in case you need to be reminded about my post from earlier, here you go (page 8) of this thread:

    [I]I know you NE trolls have difficulty comprehending but as I expalined to the other misinformed Pats troll in January, one has nothing to do with the other.

    [B]Furthermore, you are a liar. Specter never broke any campaign finance laws. instead of citing some b/s website, here's the source -- the government agency that oversees all federal campign finance laws (ww.fec.gov). Every action against a Federal candidate taken by the agency is public information. Please cite when this agency accused Specter of breaking any campaign laws?
    [/B]
    As for Comcast being his major contributor over a 30-year distinguished career, so freaking what?????? News flash dope, Comcast is based in Philadelphia, PA. Specter was a Senator from Pennsylvania. Who is the Senator that gets the most support from Wall Street....shockingly, Schumer (NY). Who is the Senator that gets the most support from Hollywood, shockingly, Feinstein (CA); who is the Senator that gets the most support from the oil and gas industry, shockingly, Cronyin (TX). Each Senator represents the interests of his/her respective state. It goes without saying that they will protect, rightly so, the major employers in their states.

    For someone almost twice my age, you sure are dumb to very obvious facts a 20 year old should know. You must have had a very limited education.....actually, that explains plenty. [/I][/QUOTE]

    Wrong again APL. Sigh. I made up nothing. Once again, YOU are the one who plays loose with facts and then accuse others of doing same. I'm tired of this BS and your ignorance and lame schoolyard insults. If you are indeed a lawyer you must be one of the worst ever in a sorry profession.Why do you always make stuff up and then claim them as facts? Not the brightest bulb evidently.

    Next time you call someone a liar, get your facts straight a-hole. Thanks for the link which shows the 'esteemed' Sen.Specter was found in violation of several illegal campaign finance contributions, exactly as I had claimed. from YOUR link troll...

    [url]http://www.fec.gov/pages/specter.htm[/url]

    [QUOTE]REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION
    ON

    ARLEN SPECTER '96

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Arlen Specter '96 (the Committee) registered with the Federal Election Commission on January 20, 1995. The Committee was the principal campaign committee of Senator Arlen Specter, candidate for the 1996 Republican nomination for President of the United States.

    The audit was conducted pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9038(a), which requires the Commission to audit committees that receive Federal funds. The Committee received $1,010,457 in matching funds from the United States Treasury.

    The audit findings were presented to the Committee at a conference held on August 27, 1996, and in the Exit Conference Memorandum on November 26, 1996. The Committee filed a response to matters presented at the conference as well as matters addressed in the Exit Conference Memorandum.

    [B]In the Audit Report, the Commission made determinations that the Committee pay the United States Treasury $233,768 in connection with the receipt of a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution; $83,749 in connection with the receipt of excessive contributions and $3,562 for checks issued by the Committee that were never cashed. The Committee has paid $87,311 ($83,749 + $3,562) to the United States Treasury.[/B]

    These matters are summarized below.

    APPARENT PROHIBITED IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION - 2 U.S.C. 441b(a) and 11 §CFR 100.7 (a)(1)(iii). The audit report noted that the Committee received a prohibited in-kind contribution in the amount of $233,768. The Committee used an incorporated charter air service for most of its campaign travel and paid a first class rate for each person traveling on its behalf instead of the usual and normal charter rate. Since Koro Aviation, Inc. is licensed to offer commercial service, the Committee should have paid the usual and normal charter rate. The Committee contended that 11 CFR §114.9(e) provides for reimbursement at the first class airfare. It should be noted that 11 CFR §114.9(e) addresses the use of aircraft owned or leased by corporations, other than a corporation licensed to offer commercial services.

    UNRESOLVED EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS - 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A) and 11 CFR §§110.1(k), 110.1(l), 103.3(b)(3) and (4). The Committee paid the United States Treasury $83,749, representing the value of excessive contributions that were not reattributed or refunded in accordance with the Commission's Regulations.

    STALE-DATED CHECKS - 11 CFR §9038.6. The Committee paid the United States Treasury $3,562, representing the value of checks issued by the Committee that were never cashed. [/QUOTE]


    Now go crawl back under your rock, shut your mouth for once and stop proving yourself the fool. Good night.


    BOOOOOM!

    (Edit) a little more digging finds more illegal contributions accepted and ordered repaid by the FEC for violations in the distinguished senator's 2004 campaign. Clearly the Senator had difficulty playing by rules with no regard for the law. If you want the details, look it up yourself. It's a FACT, they are there.
    Last edited by GronkWelkhead; 03-04-2012 at 08:45 PM.

  11. #231
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,915
    [QUOTE=Limolady;4382207]

    3) No one is getting suspended unless they were absolute idiots and put this long standing "incentive program" in writing.

    ;)[/QUOTE]

    I think you're wrong. There are some major disciplinary actions coming down.

  12. #232
    [QUOTE=GronkWelkhead;4383917]Wrong again APL. Sigh. I made up nothing. Once again, YOU are the one who plays loose with facts and then accuse others of doing same. I'm tired of this BS and your ignorance and lame schoolyard insults. If you are indeed a lawyer you must be one of the worst ever in a sorry profession.Why do you always make stuff up and then claim them as facts? Not the brightest bulb evidently.

    Next time you call someone a liar, get your facts straight a-hole. Thanks for the link which shows the 'esteemed' Sen.Specter was found in violation of several illegal campaign finance contributions, exactly as I had claimed. from YOUR link troll...

    [url]http://www.fec.gov/pages/specter.htm[/url]




    Now go crawl back under your rock, shut your mouth for once and stop proving yourself the fool. Good night.


    BOOOOOM![/QUOTE]

    Grickhead,

    This is a perfect illustration in your zeal to continue your smear campaign against former Sen. Specter due to his calls for an investigation of Spygate, you are pulling information out and not knowing what you are citing -- you don't even know the U.S. code you are citing.

    You claimed earlier that "Specter" violated campaign finance laws (a very serious charge). I hope you realize what you posted indicates that his "campaign" (aka, the "committee), not Specter, was fined for said infractions. That is a major difference between the "former Senator" and "the committee/campaign."

    The largest fine being that the committee/campaign took charter flights and reimbursed at the first class rate instead of the charter rate in connection with his Presidential run.

    The other 2 violations are very minor as well. I hope you realize, as you search high and low, that all campaigns receive fines at one point or another. The campaign finance laws are very complex and eventually infractions will occur. What Specter's campaign did is equivalent to getting a holding penalty on an offensive drive.

    Nice try troll. I suggest before you post, understand the U.S. code you are citing. That would help so you don't look stupid. :P:eek::yes:
    Last edited by jetssjumets; 03-04-2012 at 08:44 PM. Reason: typos

  13. #233
    aside from jetssjumets completely owning the troll, why have the trolls been allowed to so badly derail this thread.

  14. #234
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,915
    [QUOTE=TurkJetFan;4383968]aside from jetssjumets completely owning the troll, why have the trolls been allowed to so badly derail this thread.[/QUOTE]

    Hmmm...I think it started with post #36 which was made by... :blink:

    Anyway, PFT reporting strong possibility of suspensions the NO GM, Sean Payton, and players as well. Almost a cert there will be fines and lost draft choices as well.

    This was really, really stupid and completely unnecessary. Feel sorry for the NO fans.
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 03-04-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  15. #235
    [QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383956]Grickhead,

    This is a perfect illustration in your zeal to continue your smear campaign against former Sen. Specter due to his calls for an investigation of Spygate, you are pulling information out and not knowing what you are citing -- you don't even know the U.S. code you are citing.

    You claimed earlier that "Specter" violated campaign finance laws (a very serious charge). I hope you realize what you posted indicates that his "campaign" (aka, the "committee), not Specter, was fined for said infractions. That is a major difference between the "former Senator" and "the committee/campaign."

    The largest fine being that the committee/campaign took charter flights and reimbursed at the first class rate instead of the charter rate in connection with his Presidential run.

    The other 2 violations are very minor as well. I hope you realize, as you search high and low, that all campaigns receive fines at one point or another. The campaign finance laws are very complex and eventually infractions will occur. What Specter's campaign did is equivalent to getting a holding penalty on an offensive drive.

    Nice try troll. I suggest before you post, understand the U.S. code you are citing. That would help so you don't look stupid. :P:eek::yes:[/QUOTE]

    Lawyer speak. You said there are [B]no violations [/B]and now you want to claim a distinction between his committee and the senator when[U] I provided proof of violations[/U]. There are others from 2004 and possibly others but I stopped searching as you're not worth any more effort. You're a moving target as usual, playing loose with the facts and liked by only your like minded butt buddies. I'm done.

    I'm done wasting my time and I've sufferred the fool for too long as is. It's not like we'll ever see eye to eye on a single subject anyway.

  16. #236
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;4383976]Hmmm...I think it started with post #36 which was made by... :blink:

    Anyway, PFT reporting strong possibility of suspensions the NO GM, Sean Payton, and players as well. Almost a cert there will be fines and lost draft choices as well.

    This was really, really stupid and completely unnecessary. Feel sorry for the NO fans.[/QUOTE]

    Post #36 was from me responding to another Jets poster. This is a Jets fan website. As anyone can read, my original response included no hostility, insults, or anything of the such. Yet, only a few responses later, the NE trolls, in particular, Grickhead, begin to hijack the thread with their normal b/s.

    My sincere apologies. Not my original intention. I guess Jets fans cannot provide their opinion to other Jets fans on NE, Spygate or whatever on a fan message board for Jets fans without the infectious trolls weighing in.

  17. #237
    Someone please tell this troll genius to learn how to read US code before making a jackass out of himself (Grickhead)?

    It is lawyer speak. However, there is a HUGE distinction between the "Senator" and the "committee/campaign." If the former Senator was in violation of campaign finance laws as you alleged earlier today, he would've been in serious legal jeopardy and faced criminal penalities. His committee getting an infraction(s) happens in the normal course of any campaign. As I said before, camapigns are fined all the time. A committee getting an infraction is not a crime.

    Let me provide an example currently in the news. Former Sen and Presidential candidate John Edwards is accused of misappropriating campaign funds to cover up an affair he had. Notice the difference -- Edwards is going on trial, facing criminal penalities. Not his campaign committee. He, as an individual. If you don;t understand the difference, there is nothing I can post that will convince the ignorant.

    Once again troll, when you learn U.S. code, then come talk to me. Until then, troll along. :yes:

    Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and look smart than open it and remove all doubt.

  18. #238
    [QUOTE=GronkWelkhead;4382833]Please provide a link showing a Patriots coach deliberately tripping an opposing player. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

    Here it is:

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCvwQx8h0i4&feature=related[/url]

  19. #239
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;4383997]Here it is:

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCvwQx8h0i4&feature=related[/url][/QUOTE]

    LMAO. Let's see what the trolls will say now. earlier in this thread they were quoting Glazer. Here is more evidence that shows how the Pats cheat, and cheat often.

    Don't forget the controversy/confusion at the end of the AFCG this year. It is always something with them. Where there is smoke there is fire.

  20. #240
    [QUOTE=EM31;4383639]1. The work was done in advance. Possibly at half time as well but mostly in advance. Once you have a library of team plays AND THE SIGNALS THAT LED TO THEM, then you can reverse engineer a pretty good understanding of the signals or sets of signals that are used by that team. On the day of the game I am sure it was little more than confirming which signal set was in use that day. Stealing by eyeball in real time permits none of this.
    [/QUOTE]

    EM, where does this advance library of data come from? Aside from divisional rematches, the Pats were seeing their opponents for the first time each season. So you're either suggesting teams maintained the same set of signals for 1,2, up to 4 years in the case of NFC opponents, or the Pats sent assistants to other games in the league to videotape in preparation for an upcoming matchup.

    If not either of those, then the Pats had video guys rushing to decode 30 minutes of game film in 12 minutes' worth of halftime to utilize in the second half.

    Which of these scenarios do you believe most likely happened?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us