Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PhillyB

Go Troll The "free Sean Payton" Rally Event On Facebook

405 posts in this topic

no i'm saying i don't believe claims without proof to back them up

see arguing.com/kids for more information

You're dodging the question which has only two possible answers. he was representing Cam as common sense would tell you and police just weren't hiding in a bush taping sCams conversation with his dad, OR his dad was Scamming people on his sons credentials, WHICH DO YOU BELIEVE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're dodging the question which has only two possible answers. he was representing Cam as common sense would tell you and just weren't hiding in a bush taping sCams conversation with his dad, OR his dad was Scamming people on his sons credentials, WHICH DO YOU BELIEVE?

WHICH SIDE OF THIS FALSE DICHOTOMY DO YOU BELIEVE MR LONDON67

*the prosecution rests*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really though i might talk to you about it if i could understand what the fug you're trying to say here:

You're dodging the question which has only two possible answers. he was representing Cam as common sense would tell you and police just weren't hiding in a bush taping sCams conversation with his dad,

what language is this

edit: nevermind you fixed that flaming dumpster fire of text before i could quote it again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even your fellow panthers fan can admit what is obvious, sCam was behind it and they just didn't have the evidence to prove it other than common sense circumstantial evidence. I don't even care about the fact he was taking money against the rules, I'm just pointing out how everyone was morally okay with what SCam did, yet when a similiar pay for play issue involves the Saints, suddenly everyone has become these uber morale people on their high horse, eventhough SCam involved a huge amount of money for a poor student as opposed to a few insignificant couple of hundred dollars to multi millionaire athlete comprable to what they would tip at dinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really though i might talk to you about it if i could understand what the fug you're trying to say here:

what language is this

edit: nevermind you fixed that flaming dumpster fire of text before i could quote it again

When you're response involves pointing out a typo, you've basically lost the argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even your fellow panthers fan can admit what is obvious, sCam was behind it and they just didn't have the evidence to prove it other than common sense circumstantial evidence. I don't even care about the fact he was taking money against the rules, I'm just pointing out how everyone was morally okay with what SCam did, yet when a similiar pay for play issue involves the Saints, suddenly everyone has become these uber morale people on their high horse, eventhough SCam involved a huge amount of money for a poor student as opposed to a few insignificant couple of hundred dollars to multi millionaire athlete comprable to what they would tip at dinner

Paying out rewards for injuring players is not comparable to pay for play college students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College athlete allegedly receiving money to play at a school or Saints* offering money to players who injure other players. Hmmm. Definitely the college kid taking money being the bigger problem.

Maybe Saints* should of hired Cecil to be in charge of getting rid of evidence since the Saints* aparently so bad at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even your fellow panthers fan can admit what is obvious, sCam was behind it and they just didn't have the evidence to prove it other than common sense circumstantial evidence.

hey everyone the burden of proof no longer lies on the person making the claim and it's now the job of a person being accused of something to provide evidence that they did not, in fact, perform the action in question. just a heads up.

I don't even care about the fact he was taking money against the rules,.

the NCAA disagrees with your assertion

I'm just pointing out how everyone was morally okay with what SCam did,

ah yes the thing that didn't happen per official NCAA investigation. maybe you should present your slam dunk case to the NCAA infractions committee and have them reopen the investigation so that justice may finally be served.

yet when a similiar pay for play issue involves the Saints, suddenly everyone has become these uber morale people on their high horse, eventhough SCam involved a huge amount of money for a poor student as opposed to a few insignificant couple of hundred dollars to multi millionaire athlete comprable to what they would tip at dinner

the saints' bounty program is not the same thing and i don't believe for a second that you don't know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you're response involves pointing out a typo, you've basically lost the argument.

i literally could not understand what you were trying to say. seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paying out rewards for injuring players is not comparable to pay for play college students.

his post is a steaming pile of intellectual dishonesty. singling out that line is like looking at the manson murders and saying that what they did to that carpet was terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really though i figured that since BIGA feels so strongly about this issue, there must be some basis to it. i decided to do some research on the violations cam newton was found to be guilty of in his recruitment process and found a startling article on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/sports/ncaafootball/auburn-is-cleared-in-investigation-into-cam-newtons-recruitment.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still won't answer the question? I am asking you you're personal opinion.

FACTS backed by evidence

Newtons dad solicit money while claiming to be a rep for sCam in exchange for transfer in the $180k to $200k range

At a separate time a close friend and former teammate approached Miss. Also claiming to be Cams rep also looking for same amount.

Given those facts, if Cam actually didn't know, then both his former teamate came up with the exact scam for same amount of $ about the same time yet never overlapped their timeframe. Further, both people where attempting to defraud Cam by making financial deals for his services ALLEGEDLY without Cams knowledge

So what is your personal opinion? cam knew and pulled an OJ, or his friend and dad both tried to defraud him.

The post you couldn't decipher the meaning of: If in the middle of a factual conversation, you're best response was trying to point out a typo in my last post that was so slight that I had already fixed it by the time you hit quote. The fact that the most clever response was an attempted pointing out a typo , then that mean you had no worthy response.

Also, circumstantial evidence IS considered evidence and only criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt, a civil matter like this falls into the guidlines of civil court, what is more likely than not, i know b/c my sister is a trial attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites