Jauronimo Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 so you can do whatever you want without consequences . If it happened 20 years about doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means he got lucky for 20 years let me rub my anus and balls in your face and see if you would dismiss this so lightly That is your solution for everything. But unless your taint emits some brand of foul truth serum, sac-ium pentothal?**** then I don't think this exercise will be particularly fruitful. ***tradename pending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 so you can do whatever you want without consequences . If it happened 20 years about doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means he got lucky for 20 years Actually, it means no one really gave a **** for 20 years. let me rub my anus and balls in your face and see if you would dismiss this so lightly Try Castro, P-Town, or Fire Island. Plenty of people who would let you, and dismiss it lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Or any English boarding school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Actually, it means no one really gave a **** for 20 years. Actually, it means the parties involved reached a confidential settlement with a non-disclosure agreement something like 22 years ago, and then after Manning dredged it up again in 2000 in his book, reached another confidential settlement with non-disclosure agreement 13 years ago. Having a legal agreement to STFU about something n.eq.to "no one really gave a ****" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Actually, it means the parties involved reached a confidential settlement with a non-disclosure agreement something like 22 years ago, and then after Manning dredged it up again in 2000 in his book, reached another confidential settlement with non-disclosure agreement 13 years ago. Having a legal agreement to STFU about something n.eq.to "no one really gave a ****" No, but public moral outrage 20 years after the fact does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 No, but public moral outrage 20 years after the fact does. Uncertain. In 1996, cell phones were the size of bricks. Video cameras were the size of bricks. The founder of Facebook was programming game consoles the size of 9 bricks. The founders of Twitter were playing with Lego bricks. Mainstream media pundits had the sensitivity of bricks towards "women's issues". In that environment, it's not surprising that news of the Manning assault sank like a brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Uncertain. In 1996, cell phones were the size of bricks. Video cameras were the size of bricks. The founder of Facebook was programming game consoles the size of 9 bricks. The founders of Twitter were playing with Lego bricks. Mainstream media pundits had the sensitivity of bricks towards "women's issues". In that environment, it's not surprising that news of the Manning assault sank like a brick. You still had a 24-hour news cycle, and still had the NY Daily News acting like a tabloid rag. And enough media presence to create a circus surrounding OJ. And enough "sensitivity" towards "women's issues" to drive foreign policy in ridiculous and destructive directions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Manning. I just have absolutely no sympathy for people who feel there's some great cover-up going on of some unheard-of scandal that they must be outraged about NOW...simply because they weren't paying attention 20 years ago. And even less so when they're such cowards that they have to blame "lack of Facebook" for their ignorance. Sure, you didn't know. Now you do. And you're so morally outraged that you want to punish him for a 20-year old story that would be dead and buried if not for the fine, fine rabble-rousing manipulative causistry of the Daily News. And while there's no statute of limitations on moral outrage...it doesn't make you look any less a crybaby for your ridiculous attempts at rationalizing your pathetically late attention to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 poked the bear... i hate when i do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Uncertain. In 1996, cell phones were the size of bricks. Video cameras were the size of bricks. The founder of Facebook was programming game consoles the size of 9 bricks. The founders of Twitter were playing with Lego bricks. Mainstream media pundits had the sensitivity of bricks towards "women's issues". In that environment, it's not surprising that news of the Manning assault sank like a brick. Man, I remember how big the BRICKS were in 1996! GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Tennessee wants Peyton Manning allegations removed from lawsuit The University of Tennessee filed a motion asking plaintiffs' lawyers to remove any Peyton Manning allegations from a lawsuit against the school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Man, I remember how big the BRICKS were in 1996! GO BILLS!!! lol'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Tennessee wants Peyton Manning allegations removed from lawsuit I wonder if Archie or Peyton is making this demand. Most likely both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I wonder if Archie or Peyton is making this demand. Most likely both. I'd bet on Archie. It amazes me that people are surprised by any of this family's behavior. Did everyone simply forget who Eli was drafted by, and how he got to New York? It all starts with Papa Bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'd bet on Archie. It amazes me that people are surprised by any of this family's behavior. Did everyone simply forget who Eli was drafted by, and how he got to New York? It all starts with Papa Bear. All of which paled in comparison to what Elway pulled in '83. If only we had ESPN and the interwebs back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) youtube.com/watch?v=vj-ztDB-WKY Edited February 24, 2016 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Sure, you didn't know. Now you do. And you're so morally outraged that you want to punish him for a 20-year old story that would be dead and buried if not for the fine, fine rabble-rousing manipulative causistry of the Daily News. And while there's no statute of limitations on moral outrage...it doesn't make you look any less a crybaby for your ridiculous attempts at rationalizing your pathetically late attention to the story. Excuse me? Where have I done any of these things (want to punish Manning, rationalizing late attention)? Or am I just collateral in a friendly spray of machine gun ire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 MMQB New witness, strange voicemails and more revelations in the Manning/Naughright saga. @RobertKlemko reports http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/01/peyton-manning-jamie-naughright-1996-incident-greg-johnson-voicemail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 MMQB New witness, strange voicemails and more revelations in the Manning/Naughright saga. @RobertKlemko reports http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/01/peyton-manning-jamie-naughright-1996-incident-greg-johnson-voicemail It's odd that a never before known or claimed witness appears at this time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garranimal Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) MMQB New witness, strange voicemails and more revelations in the Manning/Naughright saga. @RobertKlemko reports http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/01/peyton-manning-jamie-naughright-1996-incident-greg-johnson-voicemail wow, it is downright shocking that people who work or worked at the university that Peyton donates to would be in such lockstep on their characterizations of the two parties and diametrically opposed to testimony given by others who interestingly, are not employed by UT. That school is rotting from head.....see Butch Jones as the latest example. It's odd that a never before known or claimed witness appears at this time... ....who just happens to be his college roommate. Man that guy has some wicked-good timing! He just happened to be in the training room and now just happens to remember the incident and is shocked...i say shocked....to NOW learn about the story. Anyone not think that Archie Manning is DB megalomaniac of the first order? Edited March 2, 2016 by Garranimal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts