Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

See my whole arguement about Vick was that this latest installment just added the cherry to the top of the sundae of stupid things he has done. You are Micheal Freaking Vick!!! do you not think that being the number one overall pick, being always under the microscope and being known world wide as an eletricfying player may draw some attention to you...

He decided to pull the whole Ron Mexico thing, he flipped off the fans that pay their hard earned wages to see him play and added a nice F-off on top of it. Then he decides to try and keep a water bottle that has a comprtment in it. (Yes I know he is innocent now) but still these are no exactly things that a smart person would do.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

There is a lot of hate out there for Vick.

Vick is a rich, dumb jock, not a PHD. What the hell do you guys expect? Look at his brother, do you think they came from a middle class, white bread suburb like most us did? Do think they had great role model or a great education? Not likely.
Vick is not a terrible person. He has done some stupid things, but he has only hurt himself. No need to hate.


To mention Vick and OJ in the same sentence should only be about great runners with great moves.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

Grim21Reaper

If you were actually as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you'd go back and read what I wrote. I didn't compare Michael Vick to OJ Simpson. I compared the legal innocence of the two men. And surely someone of your intellectual prowess will recognize that their legal innocence is exactly the same. Thus, a comparison is pretty valid.

Now, what I asked rhetorically and obliquely was whether or not legal innocence makes you certain of actual innocence in a situation where a criminal offense may have been committed. See, that's called a hypotehtical situation, and so it calls for conjecture on the part of someone contemplating it. If you understood that sort of subtlety, you'd see that there's actually an interesting philosophical question in there. A tree fell in the forrest without anyone there to witness it and now the question isn't whether or not there was a noise; it's who felled the tree...

For the record, just so you know, I graduated from an Ivy League university and was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year. I then earned a PhD in chemistry. If you have educational/intellectual credentials that are superior to that, I'll be glad to acknowledge your superior intellect. Until then, please try to read the posts here a bit more carefully.

Now to set the record straight:

I don't hate Michael Vick; I don't know him; I have no reason to believe that he is a person who does evil things to his fellow man. I do think that many of his behaviors - while not ones that have caused him to become a convicted criminal - are less than intelligent ones given his stature in the community and in the sports world. So, because I think he behaves in ways that are not all that intelligent, I characterize him as a MORON.

My appologies for the tedious repetition to those Warpath readers who understood what I said in the first place...

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;272059]Grim21Reaper

If you were actually as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you'd go back and read what I wrote. I didn't compare Michael Vick to OJ Simpson. I compared the legal innocence of the two men. And surely someone of your intellectual prowess will recognize that their legal innocence is exactly the same. Thus, a comparison is pretty valid.

Now, what I asked rhetorically and obliquely was whether or not legal innocence makes you certain of actual innocence in a situation where a criminal offense may have been committed. See, that's called a hypotehtical situation, and so it calls for conjecture on the part of someone contemplating it. If you understood that sort of subtlety, you'd see that there's actually an interesting philosophical question in there. A tree fell in the forrest without anyone there to witness it and now the question isn't whether or not there was a noise; it's who felled the tree...

For the record, just so you know, I graduated from an Ivy League university and was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year. I then earned a PhD in chemistry. If you have educational/intellectual credentials that are superior to that, I'll be glad to acknowledge your superior intellect. Until then, please try to read the posts here a bit more carefully.

Now to set the record straight:

I don't hate Michael Vick; I don't know him; I have no reason to believe that he is a person who does evil things to his fellow man. I do think that many of his behaviors - while not ones that have caused him to become a convicted criminal - are less than intelligent ones given his stature in the community and in the sports world. So, because I think he behaves in ways that are not all that intelligent, I characterize him as a MORON.

My appologies for the tedious repetition to those Warpath readers who understood what I said in the first place...[/quote]

this is considered ownage my friends....

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

I once got blazed with this dude in Blacksburg who looked like Mike Vick. Said his name was Ron Mexico though. Anyway, this guy had that skunk. It was a good weekend, from what I can remember.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;272059]Grim21Reaper

If you were actually as smart as you want everyone to think you are, you'd go back and read what I wrote. I didn't compare Michael Vick to OJ Simpson. I compared the legal innocence of the two men. And surely someone of your intellectual prowess will recognize that their legal innocence is exactly the same. Thus, a comparison is pretty valid.

Now, what I asked rhetorically and obliquely was whether or not legal innocence makes you certain of actual innocence in a situation where a criminal offense may have been committed. See, that's called a hypotehtical situation, and so it calls for conjecture on the part of someone contemplating it. If you understood that sort of subtlety, you'd see that there's actually an interesting philosophical question in there. A tree fell in the forrest without anyone there to witness it and now the question isn't whether or not there was a noise; it's who felled the tree...

For the record, just so you know, I graduated from an Ivy League university and was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year. I then earned a PhD in chemistry. If you have educational/intellectual credentials that are superior to that, I'll be glad to acknowledge your superior intellect. Until then, please try to read the posts here a bit more carefully.

Now to set the record straight:

I don't hate Michael Vick; I don't know him; I have no reason to believe that he is a person who does evil things to his fellow man. I do think that many of his behaviors - while not ones that have caused him to become a convicted criminal - are less than intelligent ones given his stature in the community and in the sports world. So, because I think he behaves in ways that are not all that intelligent, I characterize him as a MORON.

My appologies for the tedious repetition to those Warpath readers who understood what I said in the first place...[/quote]


By the way it is spelled "forest" (as in Gump) and "apologies" is also what you meant to type but what are a couple of middle school typos among friends... It is funny, the last guy who told me how smart he was had an "Ivy league" education. Then he told me that he wanted to fight me and put it on YouTube (sounds like something that Berkeley would suggest, don't you think?) Please check your notes. I never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else but I suppose that comparing a double murder where the defendant faced a jury to throwing away a bottle with a hidden compartment seems totally invalid. How is that Phd in chemistry helping you with your sports website? Why spend the day working on the next alternative fuel when you can talk about Jay Cutler? That is the nice thing about the internet, you can be whatever you want.

I have found that, typically, people who throw around big words and credentials are attempting to overcome some shortcoming but I have been wrong before.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=hooskins;272061]this is considered ownage my friends....[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]"As Hooskins partakes of another malt based beverage, the light bulb turns on and he graces the Warpath with painstakingly crafted post!" [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

I can see where this is headed....Can't we all just get along :)?

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

Back to Vick, I thought initially they said this was going to take several weeks to resolve because of the lab tests... then all of a sudden it's over??

Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio today said something interesting. Back when the whole Ron Mexico fiasco was going on ESPN told to not talk about it on the air. He said it seems that the NFL goes out of their way to cover things up for this guy. He is afterall worth a ton of $$ to them.