Jump to content

Scathing article in NYDN on Peyton Manning

YoloinOhio

By YoloinOhio
in The Stadium Wall Archives

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jauronimo Hall of Famer

Jauronimo

Posted
Posted

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

  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

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.

Hapless Bills Fan Hall of Famer

Hapless Bills Fan

Posted
Posted

 

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 ****"

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

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.

Hapless Bills Fan Hall of Famer

Hapless Bills Fan

Posted
Posted

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.

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

 

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.

K-9 Hall of Famer

K-9

Posted
Posted

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!!!

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

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.

KD in CA Hall of Famer

KD in CA

Posted
Posted

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!

Hapless Bills Fan Hall of Famer

Hapless Bills Fan

Posted
Posted

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?

Garranimal RFA

Garranimal

Posted
Posted (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 by Garranimal
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...