Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, 3rdand12 said:

depends on the intentions of the Publisher now doesn't it ?

I will say it's much easier to tell a lousy book by its cover than a good one.

 

And Shady should have taken a better look. ;)

Posted
14 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

Asking for the specific items is a big red flag

But...is that proveable. They need a smoking gun per se. I think they would have to nail someone for the breaking and entering and then they would have to squeal.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, 3rdand12 said:

as in Peterman, Saviour ?

 

 

I corrected just before you posted, but kudos.

 

i was too busy reading you threading higher up on the page to check it sooner so it is your fault.

 

...love your post, btw.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Commonsense said:

More crap. She just got the court date pushed back 30 days. Why would she beat herself up when she is clearly doing a fine job of delaying the eviction?

The fact that she won’t leave his house raises enough questions about her character to maintain a healthy skepticism about all of this.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

By the way, earlier today De Cordon's IG account was viewable by anyone.  Now you have to "follow" her to see her IG.  Hmmmm....seems like they are using this as an opportunity to mass grow her followers and exploit the situation which makes it further suspicious.  And its working too as she has gained a ton of followers since making the switch

 

https://www.instagram.com/msdecordon/?hl=en

This is one of the many reasons why I hate social media platforms such as IG and the like.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I will say it's much easier to tell a lousy book by its cover than a good one.

 

And Shady should have taken a better look. ;)

Oh he was careless with this particular addition to his Library for sure

Edited by 3rdand12
r
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Charges don't matter in the NFL's eyes. Their personal conduct policy involves how their players carry themselves in the public eye. 

 

This will be McCoy's second incident in the last couple years. His friends beat the crap out of some cops at a bar on camera, and now he's being accused of something much more severe. The NFL doesn't want their players getting this type of attention, and I think it will almost certainly result in a suspension. 

 

Your characterization of what happened in Philly is conjecture that was not proven. A suspension is a giant leap based on what we know thus far.

Posted

Again, no hard evidence.  I'm not saying he didn't do it.  I'm saying there is not enough hard evidence to say he did or didn't.  The known facts as we have them make the accuser's story plausible.  At the same time, it's equally plausible that she set this up...or was attacked for something completely unrelated, and seized the opportunity to frame McCoy.

 

I refuse to come to any definate conclusion withoout some hard evidence.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Charges don't matter in the NFL's eyes. Their personal conduct policy involves how their players carry themselves in the public eye. 

 

This will be McCoy's second incident in the last couple years. His friends beat the crap out of some cops at a bar on camera, and now he's being accused of something much more severe. The NFL doesn't want their players getting this type of attention, and I think it will almost certainly result in a suspension. 

Yea I'm actually seeing what you guys are saying with the NFL and suspending. I had no idea they roll forward on a suspension that a guy wasn't found guilty on. That's interesting. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

 

I corrected just before you posted, but kudos.

 

i was too busy reading you threading higher up on the page to check it sooner so it is your fault.

 

...love your post, btw.

I accept any and all blames for any misfortunes that have occurred to you and most the rest of the worlds.

Thank you for taking notice. Muchas Gracias

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

I find this thread a bit nutso.
so many of us are making conclusions about what and how and who.
Is this the neighborhood womens bridge club of the 21st century with Social media being the transport ?

i can easily wait and see. perhaps others should consider being less womanly dramatic ?‍♂️

 

This is logical and a smart response besides the womanly dramatic quip.

 

But this is how the public and society never react in the aftermath of these situations. 

Edited by Ol Dirty B
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Again, no hard evidence.  I'm not saying he didn't do it.  I'm saying there is not enough hard evidence to say he did or didn't.  The known facts as we have them make the accuser's story plausible.  At the same time, it's equally plausible that she set this up...or was attacked for something completely unrelated, and seized the opportunity to frame McCoy.

 

I refuse to come to any definate conclusion withoout some hard evidence.

and this is how we do it.

 i could link the song for fun. but i won't

Edited by 3rdand12
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Lfod said:

Yea I'm actually seeing what you guys are saying with the NFL and suspending. I had no idea they roll forward on a suspension that a guy wasn't found guilty on. That's interesting. 

 

Yeah, the NFL has always suspended based off their personal conduct policy.

 

If a player's name pops up in the news enough for the wrong reasons, they'll likely face a suspension. 

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

That's your feelings, not the law. If this was true he'd have her on the streets.

Nope. She has tenants rights, not marital rights. What is so hard to understand.

Posted

Two words and you forget about Shady: Joe Banyard....... Problem solved and good night. Can't  solve problems like this on an empty stomach so I'm  headed to bed!

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

The fact that she won’t leave his house raises enough questions about her character to maintain a healthy skepticism about all of this.

He was dumb enough to file a court order asking for the return of objects. He's done, out of the league, and will never play again. And he will probably go to jail.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, BUFFALOKIE said:

Nope. She has tenants rights, not marital rights. What is so hard to understand.

Not if they were common law partners. Those distinctions vary based on jurisdiction. If they were in a relationship and living together its a whole different ball game.

Edited by MURPHD6
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...