If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Warren Sapp fingers Jeremy Shockey. Ewwww   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line 248
    More: Obvious, Warren Sapp, Jeremy Shockey, Saints, Deep Throat, Rich Eisen, New York Giants, tweeters, Got It  
•       •       •

2021 clicks; posted to Sports » on 22 Mar 2012 at 11:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-22 04:36:02 PM
Busy yourself with other shiat, Congress, damn.
 
2012-03-22 04:40:34 PM

TwoBeersOneCan: It's only getting worse for the Saints. Congress is apparently trying to get involved.

Link (new window)

/off to buy popcorn


Weird, I didn't know that laws that made things illegal were retroactive.
 
2012-03-22 04:48:19 PM

bulldg4life: That is beyond retarded. Steroid investigations were bad enough, but this is just pants on head stupid.


While I agree that was stupid and unnecessary, at least it was about an entire league that has an anti-trust exemption. This is just one team's recent locker room stupidity and they already had the ban hammer foisted upon them. What we have here is a moron who met with his advisers and likely literally said the words, 'can we get some ink out of this?'
 
2012-03-22 04:49:13 PM
img.gawkerassets.com

Your move, Sapp, lol.
 
2012-03-22 04:50:42 PM
I had a friend on Facebook post a pretty interesting view on all of this:

How the Goodell rulling just put Brees and other players at a serious increased risk for injury!

After breaking multiple records last season, Drew Brees is being set up to have his worst year ever in the NFL.

By taking away the head coach and defensive player (some of them leaders) suspensions on the way, opposing teams will be able to score at will against the Saints. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe that point. With today's razor thin margin between the best teams, you take out a few good defensive players and this team cannot defend on par with the rest of the league.

Drew and the Saints offense are about to become a one dimensional, passing, come from behind, team.

Opposing teams will know.

Defending against the pass will be easy. I don't care how good Drew Brees is, if the opposing team knows the game plan they will prepare and win. If Brees becomes one dimensional then a couple of things happen. Interceptions and incomplete passes go up.

When that happens it creates more risk for Brees as he will be exposed sitting in the pocket longer and being the true competitor, Drew will risk personal bodily harm trying to take out the defensive player who intercepts one of his passes.

It seems contradictory that a punishment doled out to send a statement about protecting players results in putting one of the premier NFL players at risk?

Not to mention more crossing routes over the middle opening up receivers to greater injury, and on the other side of the ball you will have second string players trying to do more with less skills and training. No major corporation would allow an employee without the right skill set and proper training to run an assembly line or work power tools without proper training and leadership. It opens the corporation up to a host of liability issues and the employee will be at a higher risk of injury.

Welcome to future player injury lawsuits NFL.

The Goodell rulling doesn't seem so smart now does it? The penalties he imposed are short sighted and excessive and in the end puts more players at risk on the Saints offense and defense.

If you haven't connected the dots this affects all of the Saints player stats and contract incentive money, additionally exposing all of them to a greater chance of getting hurt. If the players association is looking for a good legal standing to oppose this ruling, I just gave it to them free of charge.

More over will there be an asterisk next to Brees, Sprolles, Colston, etc. in the record books for this year due to the Goodell ruling?

Not A Chance.

Do you see why Brees and his agent are upset about the franchise tag. He will be subject to a greater degree of risk and his lifetime stats will be ruined this season.

Last night I had a dream, in it a solution to the Saints season. Woke up at 1:00am and wrote it out. It was just a dream it couldn't really happen.

Read on...

The entire Saints team should take a knee on every play this season...on both sides of the Line.

Hear me out, as this will accomplish more than any Anti-Goodell -NFL t-shirt ever will.
1.) It protects the Health of the players that the Goodell ruling has now put at risk.

2.) It hits the owners in their pocketbooks as every opposing team offensive player will be able to hit their contract incentive bonus after racking up 1000+ yards against the Saints every game.

3.) The stat books will have to put an asterisk next to the entire season. And even if they don't then the stats for all the teams opposing the Saints will stick out like a sore thumb for all to see forever. Saints 0 Tampa Bay 147 (21 touch downs easily doable in a one sided game)

To do your part every fan has to go to the games. Every. Single. One.

Here's why...

You know that after the first game the NFL may try to intervene and cancel the rest of the Saints season. Bringing upon them the largest season ticket holder class action lawsuit the NFL has ever seen. Especially since everyone showed up.

Also the vendors and every other associated business that survives on Game day will join suit. Not to mention having to refund the TV networks as they will have a break in their Sunday contract.

If the stadium is empty he might have a cause of action. But if the stadium is full of Saints fans having a big 'ole New Orleans Style party, and after every touchdown by the opposing team, the stadium chants GOODELL! GOODELL! Loud enough for the TV audiences...we take away that cause of action not to mention royally screwing up this NFL season as announcers will talk about it all the way through the Superbowl.

Now there may be clauses in the player contracts that belay this behavior. I'm not trying to cause harm to the NFL after all I have no say over the player action on or off the field. After all it was only a dream.

I also believe that the player actions as well as the coaches were wrong on multiple levels. But since the violation was centered on money then that's where they should pay. Pay dearly. If this was brought about in a civil court of law as it should since it was a violation of contract, the losers would pay.

This ruling exposes the players left on the field to greater injury and takes money out of the loyal fans pockets who buy season tickets to help produce a winning team. Purposely hurting the two groups that had nothing to do with the infractions, while the rule breakers get to sit at home in the safety of their own arm chairs, living off endorsements and investments, not getting hurt at all, it is a misguided unfair punishment.

That's like punishing the whole school because five or six guys got in a spitball fight.

No the ruling should have been for the wrongdoers to give all of their annual pay, endorsements included, to a fund set up for retired and injured players. Get their butts on the field and have them work for free for the year. If they don't like that then suspend them for 20 years.

Finally, if I were to design a shirt for this season it would simply state "No Injury - Take a Knee" that's another freebie.
 
2012-03-22 04:51:17 PM
Now I definitely agree with the year suspension. It's YOU'RE, Sean.
 
2012-03-22 04:52:02 PM

JohnBigBootay: We did all that a few years ago. Bellicheck is a genius, right? They told him to stop, right? But he kept doing it anyway, right? Ergo, he was deriving something of value from doing it.


You misread the question. Ricky said that the taping had a direct effect on the game. I'm asking what that direct effect was.
 
2012-03-22 04:52:48 PM

TwoBeersOneCan: It's only getting worse for the Saints. Congress is apparently trying to get involved.

Link (new window)

/off to buy popcorn


Durbin can go fark himself. This is already being handled.
 
2012-03-22 04:57:20 PM
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-22 04:57:33 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: JohnBigBootay: We did all that a few years ago. Bellicheck is a genius, right? They told him to stop, right? But he kept doing it anyway, right? Ergo, he was deriving something of value from doing it.

You misread the question. Ricky said that the taping had a direct effect on the game. I'm asking what that direct effect was.


Well I don't think the glare from the camera lens blinded anyone if that's where you're going but I suspect the info derived from the taping gave the Pats a leg up on the competition, i.e. they used the information to inform the way they would play which would be a 'direct effect' to me. Why else do it if not?
 
2012-03-22 04:59:09 PM
Tebow>Durbin
 
2012-03-22 05:01:01 PM

Polishwonder74: [i208.photobucket.com image 640x353]


Poor Shock, up there on a cross.

/actually does kinda look like that, lol
 
2012-03-22 05:06:43 PM
t3.gstatic.com

"I'll kill a snitch. I'm not saying I have, I'm not saying I haven't. You know what I mean. Whatever, kids don't know shiat."
 
2012-03-22 05:21:20 PM

robsul82: [img.gawkerassets.com image 320x480]

Your move, Sapp, lol.

"hell you were in the offensive mtgs with me"


Did Shockey just admit to knowing about the bounties? Otherwise, I don't see the point of the meetings comment.
 
2012-03-22 05:25:04 PM

AnotherBluesStringer: I had a friend on Facebook post a pretty interesting view on all of this:


Interesting as in retarded?
 
2012-03-22 05:25:27 PM

netweavr: Did Shockey just admit to knowing about the bounties? Otherwise, I don't see the point of the meetings comment.


That was Payton's comment, and it seems to mean that offensive players didn't know what the defense was doing, as "you were in the offensive meetings with me."
 
2012-03-22 05:27:26 PM

robsul82: netweavr: Did Shockey just admit to knowing about the bounties? Otherwise, I don't see the point of the meetings comment.

That was Payton's comment, and it seems to mean that offensive players didn't know what the defense was doing, as "you were in the offensive meetings with me."


Uh.. so "you couldn't have known about the bounties because you were with me the whole time?"

Payton knew about the bounties though...
 
2012-03-22 05:29:28 PM

netweavr: Payton knew about the bounties though...


duh?

That's why he was suspended for so long. He knew about them, lied to the NFL investigators, then didn't stop them after they were told to knock it off.
 
2012-03-22 05:33:16 PM

netweavr: Uh.. so "you couldn't have known about the bounties because you were with me the whole time?"

Payton knew about the bounties though...


So that automatically means he told everyone in the offense "Hey guys, they've got $1,000 on Newton today, tee hee?" No, he was busy actually going through the offense in offensive meetings. The implication of his comment is pretty obvious, man.
 
2012-03-22 05:40:13 PM

JohnBigBootay: they used the information to inform the way they would play


Like what?
 
2012-03-22 05:40:46 PM
"I was never in the defensive meeting rooms to know anything about what went on in there and I've never been asked to try and hurt someone on the opposing team. Nobody ever said, 'Oh, go take out [Minnesota defensive end] Jared Allen and you can make some money.' I never been about hurting someone. I've paid guys for getting a big interception or returning a kickoff for a touchdown, if you want to call that a bounty."

Actually, Jeremy, yes. I want to call that a bounty. ANY type of pay-for-play is against the exact same rule.

Also, you paid guys for getting a big interception? That's a defensive play. That's a defensive bounty.

Of course Shockey knew what was going on. He admits it without even realizing he's admitting it.
 
2012-03-22 05:41:27 PM

robsul82: netweavr: Uh.. so "you couldn't have known about the bounties because you were with me the whole time?"

Payton knew about the bounties though...

So that automatically means he told everyone in the offense "Hey guys, they've got $1,000 on Newton today, tee hee?" No, he was busy actually going through the offense in offensive meetings. The implication of his comment is pretty obvious, man.


My confusion is that it seems strange to imply that the only way someone could have learned about the bounties is by being in the those meetings. "I'm not the whistle-blower, I was in meetings with Sean Payton everytime anyone ever talked about the bounty-program."
 
2012-03-22 05:44:13 PM

Slow To Return: "I was never in the defensive meeting rooms to know anything about what went on in there and I've never been asked to try and hurt someone on the opposing team. Nobody ever said, 'Oh, go take out [Minnesota defensive end] Jared Allen and you can make some money.' I never been about hurting someone. I've paid guys for getting a big interception or returning a kickoff for a touchdown, if you want to call that a bounty."

Actually, Jeremy, yes. I want to call that a bounty. ANY type of pay-for-play is against the exact same rule.

Also, you paid guys for getting a big interception? That's a defensive play. That's a defensive bounty.

Of course Shockey knew what was going on. He admits it without even realizing he's admitting it.


Seems pretty clear he's talking about not knowing about the "bad" bounties, notwithstanding the illegality of both varieties. Whether or not that's a crock, that's up to the individual.
 
2012-03-22 05:48:24 PM

netweavr: My confusion is that it seems strange to imply that the only way someone could have learned about the bounties is by being in the those meetings. "I'm not the whistle-blower, I was in meetings with Sean Payton everytime anyone ever talked about the bounty-program."


He's saying that offensive players wouldn't have known about the non-good play bounties the defensive guys had. So yeah, Payton's saying that he didn't tell the offense about them in offensive meetings (and why would he, they go through the offense in those), and implying the only way they could've known is if they were in defensive meetings or one of the defensive players told them about it. That pretty much covers that comment, I think.
 
2012-03-22 05:48:45 PM

robsul82: Seems pretty clear he's talking about not knowing about the "bad" bounties, notwithstanding the illegality of both varieties. Whether or not that's a crock, that's up to the individual.


"But that was just among the players. When we did that stuff, we told the coaches to leave."

And I guess when they wanted to talk about the "bad" bounties, they told the offensive players to leave.
 
2012-03-22 05:50:49 PM

Slow To Return: "But that was just among the players. When we did that stuff, we told the coaches to leave."

And I guess when they wanted to talk about the "bad" bounties, they told the offensive players to leave.


I'm guessing that took place during defensive meetings. Obviously, I wasn't there and I don't know, but from others who have had such systems, the "big hit" stuff, they were handed out during defensive meetings.
 
2012-03-22 05:58:03 PM

robsul82: I'm guessing that took place during defensive meetings. Obviously, I wasn't there and I don't know, but from others who have had such systems, the "big hit" stuff, they were handed out during defensive meetings.


I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying it would be practically impossible for Shockey to have known about / contributed mony to "interception" bounties without also knowing about / contributing money to "knockout" bounties.

Certainly, none of us were there. And I wouldn't convict the man based on my anecdotal evidence. But I'm just using common sense here.
 
2012-03-22 06:01:56 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: Like what?


Since the tapes concerned taping defensive signals one would assume they would use them to inform their offense about the opponent's defense. Given that it was the largest fine in league history up to that point I have to think they had some nefarious purpose. Don't you?

Not sure I ever really bought Bellicheck's insistence that they never used them during the same game for halftime adjustments. I mean, why would I? What else could he say? I would have been willing to had the tapes or other records been released, but they were destroyed, which of course just feeds into the conspiracy angle. I don't know everything that went on there - and now we never will.
 
2012-03-22 06:05:21 PM

Slow To Return: I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying it would be practically impossible for Shockey to have known about / contributed mony to "interception" bounties without also knowing about / contributing money to "knockout" bounties.

Certainly, none of us were there. And I wouldn't convict the man based on my anecdotal evidence. But I'm just using common sense here.


Isn't it in the NFL's own accounting of the situation that it was only defensive players, Williams, and that Ornstein guy contributing to the KO bounties? I thought it was. Furthermore, from what I've heard from players since this broke, offenses and defenses are pretty much their own separate bubbles on a team. Were the "bad" bounties kept on lockdown, super secret among only defensive players, whereas the "good play" bounties were public among everybody? Like you said, I wasn't there and I don't know. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've heard from the guys who have come out and contributed their stories, the "bad" bounties could've been on double secret probation. They also could not have. Just don't know.

To be clear, I figure shiat generally gets around, but they have plausible deniability and they're using it. Or they could be telling the truth. I don't know. I'm just happy March Madness resumes in a couple hours and I can focus on that.
 
2012-03-22 06:09:43 PM

JohnBigBootay: I don't know everything that went on there


The only thing anyone has is guesses, rumor, and speculation.

It would be nice to have something to hang one's hat on. Maybe not anything rising to the level of a known felon being in communication with the head coach about a $5000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers, that's a lot to ask for.
 
2012-03-22 06:11:14 PM

robsul82: from what I've heard from players since this broke, offenses and defenses are pretty much their own separate bubbles on a team


You didn't know that already? Interesting.
 
2012-03-22 06:13:46 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: You didn't know that already? Interesting.


Did I know they're as separate as those players have said? No. I was busy playing basketball and hockey as a kid, I would've been squashed if I tried to play football.
 
2012-03-22 06:14:21 PM

robsul82: Slow To Return: I think you're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying it would be practically impossible for Shockey to have known about / contributed mony to "interception" bounties without also knowing about / contributing money to "knockout" bounties.

Certainly, none of us were there. And I wouldn't convict the man based on my anecdotal evidence. But I'm just using common sense here.

Isn't it in the NFL's own accounting of the situation that it was only defensive players, Williams, and that Ornstein guy contributing to the KO bounties? I thought it was. Furthermore, from what I've heard from players since this broke, offenses and defenses are pretty much their own separate bubbles on a team. Were the "bad" bounties kept on lockdown, super secret among only defensive players, whereas the "good play" bounties were public among everybody? Like you said, I wasn't there and I don't know. Based on the anecdotal evidence I've heard from the guys who have come out and contributed their stories, the "bad" bounties could've been on double secret probation. They also could not have. Just don't know.

To be clear, I figure shiat generally gets around, but they have plausible deniability and they're using it. Or they could be telling the truth. I don't know. I'm just happy March Madness resumes in a couple hours and I can focus on that.


From the NFL's statement:
Coach Payton received an email from a close associate that stated in part, "PS Greg Williams put me down for $5000 on Rogers (sic)." When shown the email during the course of the investigation, Coach Payton stated that it referred to a "bounty" on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

Super secret, eh?
 
2012-03-22 06:15:00 PM
I mean, I guess I could've been a kicker, but it never came to mind.
 
2012-03-22 06:15:06 PM

robsul82: Isn't it in the NFL's own accounting of the situation that it was only defensive players, Williams, and that Ornstein guy contributing to the KO bounties? I thought it was. Furthermore, from what I've heard from players since this broke, offenses and defenses are pretty much their own separate bubbles on a team.


Shockey *specifically* said he participated in a defensive bounty, albeit the "we know you're breaking the rules but we don't really care" variety. So, there's at least some crossover between the offensive and defensive "bubbles", no?

You're right, though, there's still "plausible deniability." But by admitting to contributing money to the bounty system, something he had no reason to do and which boggles my mind that he did, he significantly lowered that deniability...
 
2012-03-22 06:15:17 PM

Slow To Return: "I was never in the defensive meeting rooms to know anything about what went on in there and I've never been asked to try and hurt someone on the opposing team. Nobody ever said, 'Oh, go take out [Minnesota defensive end] Jared Allen and you can make some money.' I never been about hurting someone. I've paid guys for getting a big interception or returning a kickoff for a touchdown, if you want to call that a bounty."

Actually, Jeremy, yes. I want to call that a bounty. ANY type of pay-for-play is against the exact same rule.

Also, you paid guys for getting a big interception? That's a defensive play. That's a defensive bounty.

Of course Shockey knew what was going on. He admits it without even realizing he's admitting it.


so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?
 
2012-03-22 06:19:12 PM

netweavr: Super secret, eh?


Dude. Except for Sean Payton, obviously. Still doesn't prove the offensive players knew what was going on in defensive meetings. I figure they probably did, but there's no smoking gun there. Not unless you think Payton talked about it during offensive meetings, which would be silly at best. No reason to mention it.

Slow To Return: Shockey *specifically* said he participated in a defensive bounty, albeit the "we know you're breaking the rules but we don't really care" variety. So, there's at least some crossover between the offensive and defensive "bubbles", no?

You're right, though, there's still "plausible deniability." But by admitting to contributing money to the bounty system, something he had no reason to do and which boggles my mind that he did, he significantly lowered that deniability...


Yeah, that's true. They at least knew about the good play stuff.

animesucks: so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?


It's supposed to be, yes. And will be from now on, unless some other players have a lot of chutzpah.
 
2012-03-22 06:23:40 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: The only thing anyone has is guesses, rumor, and speculation.

It would be nice to have something to hang one's hat on.


Exactly. I am left wondering why I get to know about Sean Payton's emails but we didn't get to see Bellicheck's. Goodell himself ordered the destruction of the spygate tapes. I don't think the Kennedy assassination was on there, but still, destroying them just feeds the flames. The league could have sold them to help make up some of the lost revenue from the big hit tapes - as you know, this broadcast is the sole property of the NFL, any descriptions or accounts of the this event without the express consent of the NFL is prohibited.
 
2012-03-22 06:25:34 PM

animesucks: so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?


If they exceed $13k it's at least illegal from the standpoint of the IRS. But I don't thjnk we need to bring them into it.
 
2012-03-22 06:25:38 PM

robsul82: Zulu_as_Kono: You didn't know that already? Interesting.

Did I know they're as separate as those players have said? No. I was busy playing basketball and hockey as a kid, I would've been squashed if I tried to play football.


During the week they break down even further. Secondary has their own group. Lineman another, etc;
 
2012-03-22 06:27:35 PM

JohnBigBootay: animesucks: so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?

If they exceed $13k it's at least illegal from the standpoint of the IRS. But I don't thjnk we need to bring them into it.


Isotoner gloves are never illegal when coming from Marino.
 
2012-03-22 06:27:48 PM

muck4doo: During the week they break down even further. Secondary has their own group. Lineman another, etc;


Ah, I see. Well, I figure they're too busy to talk about the defense.
 
2012-03-22 06:30:02 PM

animesucks: so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?


Read the rule and determine for yourself.

Sections 9.1(C)(8), and 9.3(F) and (G) of the Constitution and By-Laws:

"No bonus or award may directly or indirectly be offered, promised, announced, or paid to a player for his or his team's performance against a particular team or opposing player or a particular group thereof. No bonuses or awards may be offered or paid for on field misconduct (for example, personal fouls to or injuries inflicted on opposing players)."
 
2012-03-22 06:33:41 PM

robsul82: animesucks: so what about all the running backs that buy a lot of gifts for their offensive linemen if they get a certain amount of rushing yards in a season? is that illegal?

It's supposed to be, yes. And will be from now on, unless some other players have a lot of chutzpah.


looking at the rule, it looks like it might be limited to a single game. So, results over an entire season don't seem to fall under this particular rule. Although it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't fall under this rule. Or that there's not another rule covering it. Otherwise, what an easy way to get around the salary cap.
 
2012-03-22 07:03:30 PM

JohnBigBootay: I am left wondering why I get to know about Sean Payton's emails but we didn't get to see Bellicheck's.


Relevance?
 
2012-03-22 07:07:12 PM

robsul82: Did I know they're as separate as those players have said? No. I was busy playing basketball and hockey as a kid, I would've been squashed if I tried to play football.


Ah, hence your belief that football-player culture exists behind an impenetrable wall of mystery. Or was that just hysterical, yesterday you talking? (btw - you seem better today)
 
2012-03-22 07:16:12 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: Ah, hence your belief that football-player culture exists behind an impenetrable wall of mystery. Or was that just hysterical, yesterday you talking? (btw - you seem better today)


No, that belief comes from the players themselves and my own logical brain that comparing the culture of an office job to that in which people are paid to fark each other up is blatantly idiotic. Still stands, too, as much as you want to assign ridiculously douche phrases like "behind an impenetrable wall of mystery" to it.
 
2012-03-22 07:19:16 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: Relevance?


Well, for one, you brought up some damning revelations from Saints internal communications. Were there damning revelations in Bellicheck's notes/emails? Stuff that could have confirmed (or refuted) the idea that the Pats used tape during the same game for halftime adjustments that make a mockery of fair competition in the NFL? Hell if I know. All we know is that Goodell ordered all notes and tapes to be turned over to the league and they were subsequently destroyed.
 
2012-03-22 07:46:33 PM
Like Nixon, Payton went down hard for the coverup, not the crime.

If he had put an end to it years ago when the NFL told him to stop or when his owner told him to stop, nobody would have heard a thing about it.

He is getting what he deserves.
 
2012-03-22 08:22:32 PM

Nabb1: Here's some perspective. Sean Payton's suspension is longer than these suspensions:

Michael Vick - for gambling and murdering dogs in an illegal dog-fighting operation that put him in federal prison


He was suspended for almost 2 years, August 2007 to July 2009

Plaxico Burress - illegally discharging a gun in a New York nightclub and going to jail

Plaxico had his supsension start in December of 2008 and was not reinstated until July of 2011.

I had responses to each of the other guys mentioned but some of them of them were before Goodell took over, so it's a little hard to compare. And the rest basically boiled down to "I don't think what they did was as bad".
 
Displayed 50 of 248 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report