Paying Players Superthread

ELTEXAN said:
It was a 9-0 decision.
Writing a concurrent decision doesn’t mean no one else agreed with your points. It doesn’t mean that at all.
SCOTUS purposefully punted that one issue because it narrowly put parameters on what it was deciding in THIS case: whether anti-trust laws were properly applied by the District Court in THIS case.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Please defer to me on this. I don't normally use "appeal to authority" in a debate, but on this one I am guessing there is one of us who has actually had a case go all the way to the Supreme Court, and one of us who has argued in every court of appeal other than the Supreme Court. I am pretty sure that's me and not you.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about here. The problem is that from past interaction with you I know you won't even try to discuss it seriously so I am not going to waste my time trying to clarify it for you.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Here we go again. Please defer to me on this. I don't normally use "appeal to authority" in a debate, but on this one I am guessing there is one of us who has actually had a case go all the way to the Supreme Court, and one of us who has argued in every court of appeal other than the Supreme Court. I am pretty sure that's me and not you.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about here. The problem is that from past interaction with you I know you won't even try to discuss it seriously so I am not going to waste my time trying to clarify it for you.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree you’re using appeal to authority.
It’s still a logical fallacy.
SCOTUS definitely decided to narrowly construe their decision to the federal anti trust issue application.
Their decision to punt the ‘amateur’ issue in no way means they “disagree” with kavanaugh.

Apply your “authority” to that.

I don’t need you to clarify things for me.

QED
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yes. I agree you’re using appeal to authority.
It’s still a logical fallacy.
SCOTUS definitely decided to narrowly construe their decision to the federal anti trust issue application.
Their decision to punt the ‘amateur’ issue in no way means they “disagree” with kavanaugh.

Apply your “authority” to that.

I don’t need you to clarify things for me.

QED
Click to expand...
This noob can't even spell GED correctly

:pop2:
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yes. I agree you’re using appeal to authority.
It’s still a logical fallacy.
SCOTUS definitely decided to narrowly construe their decision to the federal anti trust issue application.
Their decision to punt the ‘amateur’ issue in no way means they “disagree” with kavanaugh.

Apply your “authority” to that.

I don’t need you to clarify things for me.

QED
Click to expand...
Trust me, you are in way over your head. This post is a bunch of word salad that makes no sense. You are so wrong I wouldn’t even know where to start. Move along while you are way behind.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Trust me, you are in way over your head. This post is a bunch of word salad that makes no sense. You are so wrong I wouldn’t even know where to start. Move along while you are way behind.
Click to expand...
Which words didn’t you understand?
 
ELTEXAN said:
Which words didn’t you understand?
Click to expand...
Like I said, you are not a serious poster, and you have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't make sense to engage substantively with you. Move along.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Like I said, you are not a serious poster, and you have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't make sense to engage substantively with you. Move along.
Click to expand...
Yet Another post with no actual argument. Got it.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yet Another post with no actual argument. Got it.
Click to expand...
My last post, and I'll use an anecdote. I once appeared in court against a Pro Se Plaintiff. That means that the gentleman was representing himself. He got up and went on for about 15 minutes. When it was my turn to respond, I stood up and told the judge, "I have no idea what he just said, nor how it relates in any way to what we are here for. I truly have nothing in reply your honor." And I sat down. The judge looked at us both, ruled in my favor, and called the next case.

The moral of the story is that you simply don't have any idea what your are talking about. You are not capable of analyzing the specific issue we are discussing because you don't understand how the law works in this regard. You think you do, and you throw out a bunch of words that sound impressive to you, but simply makes no sense to someone like me who knows exactly how this works. For that reason, I have already stated several times, as I did to the judge, I have nothing in reply because you aren't saying anything that can be replied to.

Move along.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
, I have nothing in reply because you aren't saying anything that can be replied to.

Move along.
Click to expand...
Yet another post with no salient points on the topic. Got it. Again.

Things I stated that you could have had a reply to:
I’ll just repeat what is written in black n white:
ELTEXAN said:
It was a 9-0 decision.
Writing a concurrent decision doesn’t mean no one else agreed with your points. It doesn’t mean that at all.
SCOTUS purposefully punted that one issue [amateurism] because it narrowly put parameters on what it was deciding in THIS case: whether anti-trust laws were properly applied by the District Court in THIS case.
Click to expand...
You’ve replied four times with only your admitted logical fallacies.

“Trust me.” you stated. Lol.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
My last post, and I'll use an anecdote. I once appeared in court against a Pro Se Plaintiff. That means that the gentleman was representing himself. He got up and went on for about 15 minutes. When it was my turn to respond, I stood up and told the judge, "I have no idea what he just said, nor how it relates in any way to what we are here for. I truly have nothing in reply your honor." And I sat down. The judge looked at us both, ruled in my favor, and called the next case.

The moral of the story is that you simply don't have any idea what your are talking about. You are not capable of analyzing the specific issue we are discussing because you don't understand how the law works in this regard. You think you do, and you throw out a bunch of words that sound impressive to you, but simply makes no sense to someone like me who knows exactly how this works. For that reason, I have already stated several times, as I did to the judge, I have nothing in reply because you aren't saying anything that can be replied to.

Move along.
Click to expand...
You clubbed this guy like a baby seal. And now all he can do is lay in the snow and bleed out.
 
1659982888101.png
 
 
www.texasonefund.org

Texas One Fund | Name, Image, & Likeness (NIL)

The Texas One Fund is a one-stop fund that helps Texas student-athletes cultivate Name, Image, & Likeness opportunities so they can become the best version of themselves on and off the field.
www.texasonefund.org
 
:badmin::badmin::badmin:
 
THAT'S IT !!!

I want back pay (+ interest $$) for my high school football, basketball, and baseball playing time (i.e. work) since I was theoretically an employee of the school.

Actually where I see this going is gutting non-revenue generating sports.

Can we kill Title IX now?
 
Red_Alert said:
THAT'S IT !!!

I want back pay (+ interest $$) for my high school football, basketball, and baseball playing time (i.e. work) since I was theoretically an employee of the school.

Actually where I see this going is gutting non-revenue generating sports.

Can we kill Title IX now?
Click to expand...
You didn’t bring in any profit with your .218 batting average, 13 yards/gane, and 3.8 minutes/game playing time on the court.
 
ELTEXAN said:
You didn’t bring in any profit with your .218 batting average, 13 yards/gane, and 3.8 minutes/game playing time on the court.
Click to expand...

I was All-State in all three, Prom King, Student Council President, and got blowjobs from Buffy the cheerleader on the regular.
Buffy's mom even blew me few times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top