Haynesworth is Behaving Selfishly

[CRedskinsRule]

This "debate" really has ended up like the JC debate: the haters continually put out their reasons for hating, assuming that the non-haters need to be convinced, meanwhile the non-haters tend to agree with the basic principles of the haters while maintaining a positive overall view.
As it relates to this AH subject: I imagine 0% of the Warpath thinks AH is doing the best thing by staying away.

BUT, the haters group takes his staying away and makes argument after argument as to why this proves the absolute stupidity of a) AH, b) the FO, c) both, and vilifies everything that does not fit in their idea of the right move

AND, the non-haters group gets put in the corner of defending a) AH, b) the FO, c) both when in reality most non-haters are agreeable to the fact that both sides to one degree or another are at fault, but they hold off on pure condemnation.

Thus neither side gets the true capitulation it needs, and the debate can never really be resolved.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This "debate" really has ended up like the JC debate: the haters continually put out their reasons for hating, assuming that the non-haters need to be convinced, meanwhile the non-haters tend to agree with the basic principles of the haters while maintaining a positive overall view.
As it relates to this AH subject: I imagine 0% of the Warpath thinks AH is doing the best thing by staying away.

BUT, the haters group takes his staying away and makes argument after argument as to why this proves the absolute stupidity of a) AH, b) the FO, c) both, and vilifies everything that does not fit in their idea of the right move

AND, the non-haters group gets put in the corner of defending a) AH, b) the FO, c) both when in reality most non-haters are agreeable to the fact that both sides to one degree or another are at fault, but they hold off on pure condemnation.

Thus neither side gets the true capitulation it needs, and the debate can never really be resolved.

Well said. I often find myself defending a player even though I don't neccessarily feel he's completely innocent of criticism, just because of the wild accusations thrown at him based on speculation.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This "debate" really has ended up like the JC debate: the haters continually put out their reasons for hating, assuming that the non-haters need to be convinced, meanwhile the non-haters tend to agree with the basic principles of the haters while maintaining a positive overall view.
As it relates to this AH subject: I imagine 0% of the Warpath thinks AH is doing the best thing by staying away.

BUT, the haters group takes his staying away and makes argument after argument as to why this proves the absolute stupidity of a) AH, b) the FO, c) both, and vilifies everything that does not fit in their idea of the right move

AND, the non-haters group gets put in the corner of defending a) AH, b) the FO, c) both when in reality most non-haters are agreeable to the fact that both sides to one degree or another are at fault, but they hold off on pure condemnation.

Thus neither side gets the true capitulation it needs, and the debate can never really be resolved.

Why you hatin so much?