Jump to content


PntherPryd

Member Since 25 Nov 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 05:01 AM
-----

#2965080 Cash Money Huddle League 2014

Posted by PntherPryd on Yesterday, 06:31 PM

It is especially frustrating since I lost this game this week by 0.7.  Yes, 0.7 points.  DAMMIT ALL.

 

 

You had Sproles, I checked out and counted that as an "L"




#2965012 Are we overlooking the Steelers?

Posted by PntherPryd on Yesterday, 05:34 PM

This fan base is an insecure 9 with sharp knees.

 

 

That is such an awesome quote/image.

 

I googled it and out of 18,200,000 return hit's this thread was #1.  If that was original hat's off and if not hat's off for putting it together with this topic.




#2964168 Can you relate?

Posted by PntherPryd on Yesterday, 08:05 AM

What did you guys think about Ryan and the Falcons throwing deep in the third quarter up 35-0?

 

I realize it was early in the third but that was the moment I actually felt a touch of sympatico

 

 




#2964155 Can you relate?

Posted by PntherPryd on Yesterday, 07:57 AM

I felt sorry for them last night.  Which is great because pity>hate.

 




#2960041 pff's grading system...

Posted by PntherPryd on 17 September 2014 - 11:29 AM

The problem I have with PFF is the same thing I have with accountants trying to tell me how to run my business.  Numbers are a tool, not a be-all end-all.  Sometimes you go with your gut and your eyes.

 

Also, I have problems with their absoluteness.  How do they know absolutely that player A blew and assignment when it could have easily been player B, C or even a coach that made the mistake?

 

If you go into their assessments with the mindset that 60% of their finding "COULD" be suspect you can come away with some information that could be useful as a fan.  

 

 




#2958903 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 07:58 PM

It is. Because people say that like being guilty by a bench trial and being found guilty by a jury are the same thing. They aren't. Him being guilty at a bench trial his basically him being indicted by a grand jury. It just means there is enough evidence for his real trial.

Everyone should be operating on the fact as it currently stands. Greg hardy is innocent. If you are saying anything it means you have an agenda



The use of the word "convicted" in this case is a much better use of the negative connotation of the term semantics than the argument of whether PK was referring to non-existent court transcripts or to various twitter feeds as "testimony".


#2958503 Pittsburgh Steelers Look-A-Like Thread

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 04:53 PM

steelers1_zps1e5798a9.jpg




#2958489 Pittsburgh Steelers Look-A-Like Thread

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 04:46 PM

steelerslook_zps7382f362.jpg




#2958480 Pittsburgh Steelers Look-A-Like Thread

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 04:35 PM

steelers_zpsed904fc4.jpg

 

 

steelerbumblebeeposse_zpsd3a545a2.jpg

 

 




#2958437 Whiskey River is going full retard

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 04:20 PM

This event has just been cancelled.

 

 

you just got the Joe Person tweet?




#2957902 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 12:51 PM

There's 10 pages of comments about court transcriptions.  When Peter King's article said court testimony (and nothing about court transcriptions).  It is well known what was said at the trial and has been reported to death.  People in this thread are acting like this is legally impossible since there is technically no court transcription.  The amount of semantics in this thread is hilarious especially when it has little to do with what Peter Kind said.

 

 

Again, thank you for noting the original purpose of the thread, which was to point out that a noted sports journalist "stretched the truth"  (your words).

 

As for the negative connotations of the word "semantics", I just don't get it.  How can the study of words and their meanings get anyone's panties in a wad when we are all on a message board debating and reporting these "semantics" 24/7?

 

I don't consider "semantics" a bad thing is perhaps where we disagree.




#2957651 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 11:29 AM

Not true.  Much of the testimony has been quoted in articles.  I think you are confusing testimony with transcript.  Again it is all semantics.  You can read what each witness said.  People freaking out over semantics are focusing on the wrong things.

 

It's all opinions too; you have yours, I have mine.

 

My opinion is that pointing out a premier, nationally known sports journalist not only directly inferred that he had fully read court "testimony" but asked his readers to study them also is not freaking out,  it is holding him to his own high standards.

 

And pointing out that local media news stories of partial official quotes during the bench trial process (many of which were held out of their earshot) does not equate to "transcribed testimony" that can be admitted as evidence in the resulting trial(s) is not freaking out either.

 

Hardy's lawyers need to get the transcription they paid for out there right away, as well as any other evidence they have to the new NFL guru that just got hired.  Right now details are so slim that reporters and fans are making up their own facts to fit their opinions.




#2957203 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 08:47 AM

That may be true ... but those here who scream "but there's no transcript, so how does anybody know what was said," forget that reporters were there. The testimony is out there. I'm not defending King's or anyone else's journalistic skills ... just saying that what was said in the bench trial is not a secret.

 

 

see, that's just it.  The testimony is not out there because transcripts are not Standard Operating Procedure in NC bench trials, that is proof positive of the significance of a "guilty" verdict in a bench trial.  In this case there is reportedly a transcript only because Hardy's lawyers paid for one .... so that they could have "testimony" that would be admissible in either the jury trial or the expected civil suits later.

 

You (and perhaps Peter King, although I don't think he thought about it as much as you have) are confusing reporting with testimony, it is not the same thing.  Bill Voth's interpretation of court comments is not "testimony".




#2957168 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 08:32 AM

Peter King didn't say he read a transcript. He said "read the court testimony." There was testimony and apparently there were reporters there. I have read portions of the testimony in their reporting.

 

This story, for example: http://www.charlotte...ml#.VBg5EFfrzbw

 

 

then Peter King plagiarized those reporters by not giving him credit.

 

By telling all his readers to "read the court testimony" he is actively and strongly insinuating that he, himself did.  And that these reading efforts on his part led to his hatchet job on Hardy.

 

I don't have a problem with pointing out the character flaws of Greg Hardy, it really doesn't take a lot of investigative reporting to write a lengthy column.  But I do have a problem with witch hunts based on innuendo and lazy reporting.




#2957144 Peter King busted

Posted by PntherPryd on 16 September 2014 - 08:23 AM

Did the dickhead ever respond to anyone else?

I went to bed.

 

 

not yet, but twitter war takes time....






Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com