Re: New Theory...What do you think...

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 4/28/2014 SydneyH said:
On 4/28/2014 azterry! said:
has it been determined the tape is illegal?

In some states, only one party needs to know the conversation is being recorded.

Well the grifter girlfriend knew about the recording, I doubt the mark did......

He was involved with this woman for over 4 years.

I don't think she held him against his will and forced him to give her gifts.

He was a fool...and now we know he's also a big oted fool to boot!

biancardi · ‎03-10-2010

On 4/28/2014 bathina said:
On 4/28/2014 SydneyH said:
On 4/28/2014 azterry! said:
has it been determined the tape is illegal?

In some states, only one party needs to know the conversation is being recorded.

Well the grifter girlfriend knew about the recording, I doubt the mark did......

What did the girlfriend do to make her a grifter? I haven't heard anything like that about her. Or is it that all younger women who date older men are "grifters"?

I am a bit confused about that comment. What makes her a grifter?

There are plenty of young women who take up with old men. That is their relationship and my approval or disapproval of it has no bearing on their relationship

a grifter is a con artist. How was she a con-artist? She slept with him and he in return, gave her things. It is an old story, men and women have been doing this for thousands of years.

She didn't make him say those words, so how did she defraud him? He said them to her - she didn't make him do so.

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames

SydneyH · ‎03-10-2010

On 4/28/2014 azterry! said:
you are taking some liberties with words like "grifter" and "mark", but I think you get what I was saying. The GF knew the conversation was being recorded and if the one person rule applies in that state, the tape is not "illegal", as you said it was previously

Nope, no liberties, I meant those words. I don't know what state this took place, therefore I can't comment on the legality.

QueenDanceALot · ‎04-18-2013

On 4/28/2014 bathina said:
On 4/28/2014 biancardi said:
On 4/28/2014 cody said:
On 4/28/2014 biancardi said:
On 4/28/2014 cody said:
Just for the record...I find the personal insults made, towards a few people that don't deserve it, distasteful and unfair. It ruins the whole purpose of the topic at hand. Everyone doesn't have to feel the same way about everything. Just because I find what that slug said and did to be horrible doesn't mean that we can't discuss the other cast of characters in this drama. Does it?

I don't think her character or the wife's character need to be brought into question here. It is a totally different story. And some people actually reported it incorrectly.

the GF, as unsavory as she is, didn't embezzle Sterling. He gave her gifts - she gave him her "company" (that is, of course, a euphemism...lol)

but those things have nothing to do with Sterling. In fact, this conspiracy theory is to try and blame HER for the horrible things he said. and that is laughable.

Just like people should not put the past of a victim on trial, what is going on between the wife and the GF has no bearing with Sterling.

I do think that just focusing on Sterling and his words does make some people uncomfortable and they must bring up other things that have nothing to do with this topic.

I don't have a bit of a problem calling him a bigot and I hope he bites the big one on this issue. But everything is not black and white. Some things are gray and that is where the wife and "archivist" come into the story. They are attached. They are not the cause of his hateful behavior but they are in the cast of characters in this story. IMO.

they are a cast of characters, yes. But for me, and this is just my opinion, it should be based on what their role was in his speech.

I just don't think that the petty lawsuit and the lies (she didn't embezzle, sterling gave her those things) don't have a part in it.

I find it to be a deflection of the actual story, which is how the owner of a basketball team, which has many minorities playing on that team, could actually tell his bi-racial GF that he didn't want her to take pictures with blacks or bring her black friends to the game

If people want to bring up the other issues that have nothing to do with what Sterling stated, fine. But I will state my piece that it is deflecting from the topic as is my right to do so.

Not only did he say that, but he also said he financially supports his players, provides them with houses, cars, etc. Someone described his words as "plantation mentality".

Did someone tell that racist SOB that the players make a ton of money for him?

I hope he gets slam dunked and tossed.

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 4/28/2014 esmerelda said:
On 4/28/2014 terrier3 said:
On 4/28/2014 esmerelda said:
I guess if one owns a sports team, they forfeit their first amendment right to freedom of speech.

What's next...thought police?

Oh wait...I think they're already here.

I don't even know what this guy said. And I don't care. Words are powerless until we give them meaning.

He is free to say whatever he wants.

The public and his team are free to be disgusted by his words.

His sponsors have freely left the team and don't want to be associated with him.

I agree.

Some here think the commissioner should "do the right thing." What, exactly, would that be?

He can be fined...suspended...he is losing sponsors (big $$$ for teams).

But I think he needs to be persuaded to leave the league.

His players will have no respect for him whatsoever.

biancardi · ‎03-10-2010

On 4/28/2014 SydneyH said:
On 4/28/2014 azterry! said:
On 4/28/2014 biancardi said:
I never thought I would actually read the words about "no need to get worked up " over ra cist comments. At least not here. I would have hoped people would have some decency not to be so blatant about it.

Sadly, it was no surprise to see that.

I'll address that before the incorrect twisting of my comments starts. I was referring to the slam about my comments, not his.

you made a statement about why this was a big deal now. I responded and you wrote "no need to get worked up".

So, yeah, if I got worked up, it was over raci st comments and your original post of why is this a big deal now.

I will stand my comment I made. If you meant something else, you should have clarified it, because the way you wrote it, sounds pretty horrible.

If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane ~ Max
Look, I don’t like the taste of broccoli, but it doesn’t get tastier if you call it “Broccoli!”!
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. ~ Eames