Taking On A Pack Of Viscous Hyenas

[zebra295]

You still don't get it. Its about the insutling behavior of naming a discussion in a potentially libelous manner and other officials treating anyone who doesn't share their opinions in an un-gentlemanly tone. Its not about the A-11, dude! It's about people being so arrogant they keep mis-representing reality at the expense of fellow officials, to satisfy the crushing of an individual. Its about giving officials a bad name for trying to trash the name of a high school coach. Its about "the internet is forever". That's what this is all about, dude. If you have $50K to blow on defending yourself from a libel suit, whether your win or not, be my guest.

[Adam]

Rut, I lost track. Did he ever quote something you said that was specifically out of line?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Rut, I lost track. Did he ever quote something you said that was specifically out of line?

No he did not. I am still waiting.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No he did not. I am still waiting.

Peace

That's what I figured.

[zebra295]

Rutledge dude! It's your overall body of work of your participation in the potentially libelous Snake Oil Salesman discussion that we are talking about. What is a large grey animal, with huge ears, with a large trunk? Plenty of participants had to ask you to tone it down and yet you keep on trying to justify your ability to be an active participant in that mess? Your continued claims of "tell me what I said", when all anyone has to do is go back and read all the reprimands, make you sound worse and worse by the minute. You appear to keep turning on your fellow officials to justify your position.


Trying to help you out dude!

[Mike L]

You really think Rut can be held liable for what others say by simply participating in the discusssion? If so, that explains a lot of your original position statements. All I can say is, wow.

[UmpJM]

zebra295,

I was wondering, do you know when that show about the hyenas was going to be on the Discovery Channel again? Is it in HD? What is it that makes the hyenas thick and sticky?

While some might consider it the epitome of hypocrisy, not to mention spineless and troll-like, to post on a website for the first time with an accusatory and baseless thread of no interest to those who actually contribute to the content of the forum and reprimand others for posting anonymously while doing exactly that yourself - I simply appreciate your well-developed sense of irony.

Oh, and also the parts about "libel lawsuits" (you slay me!) while referring to your correspondents as "viscous (sic) hyenas" - perhaps you meant that as a compliment.

Despite Coach Bryan's gushingly hyperbolic praises for the "revolutionary" offense he co-developed, it strikes me as an offense whose primary premise is trying to trick the defense regarding who is and isn't an eligible receiver. If a team has never seen it before, it might work a few times. But, it's really pretty easy to read. Oh, and at least 3 of his "Top ten plays" should have been flagged.

What's your dog in this fight?

JM

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebra295

Rutledge dude! It's your overall body of work of your participation in the potentially libelous Snake Oil Salesman discussion that we are talking about. What is a large grey animal, with huge ears, with a large trunk? Plenty of participants had to ask you to tone it down and yet you keep on trying to justify your ability to be an active participant in that mess? Your continued claims of "tell me what I said", when all anyone has to do is go back and read all the reprimands, make you sound worse and worse by the minute. You appear to keep turning on your fellow officials to justify your position.


Trying to help you out dude!

First of all I did not call him a Snake Oil Salesman. I did not start the thread about the offense and I never would.

I usually read statements made about the offense (by more than Kurt) and I comment on them, partly because I have worked one of these offenses and I was called for an interview with the Chicago Tribune (which many people on this or the other site saw and asked me about).

If you do not like my words, then do not read them. I will never back down from my comments about this or many topic when I feel I am on the right side of this issue.

You still have not shown a single comment that I said that was not true or about Kurt personally. And if you want to keep repeating this, then you might have more to worry about than I do on the legal front. I have asked you several times to show one comment and you have not been able to come up with one comments. I have been on the record a lot with this topic and finding just one comment would not be hard. I guess this is more proof you have nothing but your comments and you need a little more than that in a legal proceeding.

Also you have to prove damages if people are saying something libelous about you, not your offense or an opinion on a concept.

I am still waiting for that "one" example or link that shows I said something not true or about anyone personally on this topic.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebra295

You still don't get it. Its about the insutling behavior of naming a discussion in a potentially libelous manner and other officials treating anyone who doesn't share their opinions in an un-gentlemanly tone. Its not about the A-11, dude! It's about people being so arrogant they keep mis-representing reality at the expense of fellow officials, to satisfy the crushing of an individual. Its about giving officials a bad name for trying to trash the name of a high school coach. Its about "the internet is forever". That's what this is all about, dude. If you have $50K to blow on defending yourself from a libel suit, whether your win or not, be my guest.

I would love for you to try. And then I would use all the comments from the Chicago Tribune article, the NF website, this website and you have clearly not shown one comment here how I have talked about this more than what was said. And remember there is such thing as a counter-suit and I know many officials that are lawyers that would have no problem helping out in such a case.

You have yet to show one comment that I said was not true or was even about a specific person. It is obvious you do not know the law. To be held responsible for libel or defame someone's character, you have to say things that are not true and that malicious. If you are a convicted felon and someone repeats that you are a convicted felon that is not against the law. So if Kurt claims that the offense was approved, and no such action was taken by the NF and people point that out, then it is not something you can find liable for.

We are talking about what people think of an offense. And the person that came here specifically asked for comments on this offense, has made statements that have been found out as false (like he is not making money off of this "product") have been completely proven to have misrepresented the facts. Just because you do not like my comments does not make my comments untrue.

As I said before, I am still waiting for what I said that was not true. I guess I will be waiting for awhile.

Peace

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by zebra295

You still don't get it. Its about the insutling behavior of naming a discussion in a potentially libelous manner and other officials treating anyone who doesn't share their opinions in an un-gentlemanly tone. Its not about the A-11, dude! It's about people being so arrogant they keep mis-representing reality at the expense of fellow officials, to satisfy the crushing of an individual. Its about giving officials a bad name for trying to trash the name of a high school coach. Its about "the internet is forever". That's what this is all about, dude. If you have $50K to blow on defending yourself from a libel suit, whether your win or not, be my guest.

Why do you care? How do you know whether or not that I may in fact be an attorney?