Slay probably should have caught that for an int 

1 hour ago, Khani1 said:

Rhys with a dirty play there.  Just turn your body.  No need to put your elbow is his throat.

He was none too happy with the bean ball he took yesterday.

 

3 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

This is still one of his better road starts. He’s really been bad or mediocre on the road for 3 years now. In 2019 he had a 5.19 ERA. In 2020 he had a 4.26 ERA. This year 5.29 ERA. He’s never going to be an ace until he figures his road issues out. 

He will probably never be an ace but he can be a very good #2.

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Was?

I got old. It happens to the best of us

12 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Yeah but how many alleged rapists have been exonerated by the Innocence Project. People under duress are noted to be bad witnesses.  Not saying I believe one or the other at this point.  What I do note is Hardin stated there was sexual interactions, Watson just alleges they were consensual so it will hinge on testimony.  

Chances are, even in consensual interactions the story is not the same.  How often do we recall situations differently than others who were there?  

The text(s) between the accusers and accused will be more revealing than any testimony given 

9 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Well it is evidence but when you are talking about causation and whether testimony alone could cause a conviction you are talking about proof.  In that sense, testimony is proof and evidence.  Proof is the effect of evidence in the context of a trial.  People tend to conflate proof with physical evidence which it is not.  People tend to think that convictions occur more often when there is physical evidence connecting people to a crime.  There is no requirement of any physical evidence of a crime in order to get a conviction. 

So when the debate is whether there is proof of the allegations, the correct answer is that the testimony alone could be sufficient evidence to cause a jury to convict Watson.  It is  the proof or the evidence sufficient to cause a juror to conclude Watson is guilty or liable for the alleged conduct.   In this discussion, it is proof.  

Well, maybe proof is a poor word choice in the context you are using.  I would argue it is evidence presented by the prosecution in an attempt to sustain its obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the civil case, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is to prove their case through a preponderance of the evidence, except punitive damages where the burden of proof is similar to criminal. Since all are referred to as burden of proof, to characterize  testimony as proof seems to create a misconception. Further if such is proof, the conflicting testimony would suggest a paradox where each testimony is proof.  

That dude just blasted a home run with a tight swing.  That was power!

6 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

He will probably never be an ace but he can be a very good #2.

Not sure he can even be a no. 2 until he gets better on the road 

2 minutes ago, SNOORDA said:

The text(s) between the accusers and accused will be more revealing than any testimony given 

Why?  Were all preserved?  When were they sent and for what purpose?  

5 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Yeah but how many alleged rapists have been exonerated by the Innocence Project. People under duress are noted to be bad witnesses.  Not saying I believe one or the other at this point.  What I do note is Hardin stated there was sexual interactions, Watson just alleges they were consensual so it will hinge on testimony.  

Chances are, even in consensual interactions the story is not the same.  How often do we recall situations differently than others who were there?  

I'm sorry you're comparing apples and oranges, there's a world of difference between the recall of a woman being held down and raped in a dark alley or unfamiliar surroundings and someone in their own home or a well lit hotel room with a famous NFL QB who can't acted them for a massage. plus you'll have financial records of a massage fee, hotel room bookings, his phone or email records will demonstrate prior contact and where he was. 

They've got 8-10 women giving largely consistent accounts of a pattern of behaviour. 

The idea that's all mistaken identity or faulty recall is pie in the sky stuff 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Not sure he can even be a no. 2 until he gets better on the road 

He certainly doesn't have the velocity so if he is missing on his stuff, he will get beat often.

4 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

He certainly doesn't have the velocity so if he is missing on his stuff, he will get beat often.

Had a chance to get within a half game of the mets and yet nola on the mound they manage to lose the only game of the series to the nats. 

1 hour ago, hputenis said:

So according to those reports that RTK posted, Watson requested butt stuff from pretty much every one of his Jane Doe’s. @olsilverhair I’m guessing you’d give up 10 first round picks for him now. 
 

 

nah, too many women saying he's a sleeeze ball, Im out on him, by the way hpenis I bet you'd give him a message with youre small wet noodle, am I right?

 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Had a chance to get within a half game of the mets and yet nola on the mound they manage to lose the only game of the series to the nats. 

Maybe this offense can put together some hits and rally.

2 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

Maybe this offense can put together some hits and rally.

I hope so. Still the Phillies would be in a better position if they fielded better, batted better and nola pitched like we expected. Frankly I actually think nola has been the biggest disappointment for me this year. And there’s been a ton of options to choose from 

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I hope so. Still the Phillies would be in a better position if they fielded better, batted better and nola pitched like we expected. Frankly I actually think nola has been the biggest disappointment for me this year. And there’s been a ton of options to choose from 

And right on cue lol.

17 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Why?  Were all preserved?  When were they sent and for what purpose?  

More telling than he said/she said that’s for sure

 

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

Didn't know he wanted out of the conference

Texans want him out of the conference for competitive reasons.  Watson wants to be in MIA.

Jaime Moyer's son is throwing for the Nationals.

2 hours ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

Can he run fast?

According to Kerryon he can.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

 

Good catch. Not sure why Slay didn't put his left arm forward to try to break it up. Maybe he was trying to do Reagor a solid.

46 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Texans want him out of the conference for competitive reasons.  Watson wants to be in MIA.

Why would he want to go there?

1 hour ago, NCiggles said:

Well it is evidence but when you are talking about causation and whether testimony alone could cause a conviction you are talking about proof.  In that sense, testimony is proof and evidence.  Proof is the effect of evidence in the context of a trial.  People tend to conflate proof with physical evidence which it is not.  People tend to think that convictions occur more often when there is physical evidence connecting people to a crime.  There is no requirement of any physical evidence of a crime in order to get a conviction. 

So when the debate is whether there is proof of the allegations, the correct answer is that the testimony alone could be sufficient evidence to cause a jury to convict Watson.  It is  the proof or the evidence sufficient to cause a juror to conclude Watson is guilty or liable for the alleged conduct.   In this discussion, it is proof.  

Weasiling. It is not nor has it ever been proof. Let your ego go for a moment, please.