• Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Gruden Resigns, then is fired

Steelworth

Absolutely Worthless
Does the employee have a contract with a morals clause? If not then no it isn't any of the employers business unless legal troubles prevent the employee from showing up to doing their job.

5qbsay.gif
 

ADVERTISEMENT

SteelerFan448

Well-known member
I found this interesting from Mark Davis...

Between this comment and the attorney's regarding the WFT investigation, the NFL doesn't look great. Gruden aside, how in the world has nothing come from the WFT investigation and why are only some selectively punished in the NFL? This goes from the players all the way up to the front office and ownership. Different standards for different people.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

JMM

Gone Fishin'
Would be interesting to read what others have in their sent item folders they might regret.

 

tapeANaspirin2it

Well-known member
I respectfully disagree.

1. If I have an employee that beats his spouse/partner in his/her private life - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???
2. If I have an employee that sells illegal drugs on his/her private time - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???
3. If I have an employee that has a garage full of explosive materials, high-powered rifles, and what ever else could be life threatening - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???

These scenarios could go on and on. How would you feel if you family member was on the wrong end of any of the 3 scenarios above? I bet you'd want to take up arms and get a pound of flesh like another red-blooded American man/woman.

The fact of the matter is times have changed, GLOBALLY, and the US is not the only country that has been or is currently subjected to employers doing their due diligence.

Another fun fact - we do not require a picture ID on resumes in the US. Guess how many countries do? Too many put in this post is the answer.

Gruden and any other figure in the public limelight 'has to be smarter than the average person' because they're under instant scrutiny anyway.

Did you know that the FBI background check goes back 15 years from the day of submitting your data???

The outrage here is really unbelievable if you look at this holistically...


you are pointing out crimes. Nobody thinks you are absolved of crimes under free speech.

The issue is when your boss or the government has the right to comb through everything in your life and punish for things that aren’t crimes.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

bermudasteel

Well-known member
is there a way to turn off so they can't track you or listen? I'm not a techy guy, so my phone is smarter than me.

I looked up a sub place on my phone and now getting their ads on fakebook.
No.

Phones, laptops, tablets, game consoles, microwaves, washing machines, refrigerators, etc...they all have GPS's, cameras, and WiFi connections - you CANNOT turn off anything.

The ONLY WAY is to be disconnected from the internet.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Drink IRON City

Contributor whining about a tag
Those two pics are POSTER BOYs for the NFL and what is wrong with this league. What would commissioners of the past have done with those two.?

Would the cheatriots have ever existed once caught?

Would the owner still own them ?

Would billyboy have been let to still coach or even the second time............ either time BANNED for life ?

What about cheat-shit TB12 cocktail b*y, would he still be in the league ????





Salute the nation
 

Stewey

Well-known member
Jon Grudens name was removed from Tampa Bays ring of honor.

Any time now the Browns are gonna remove Jim Brown from the Cleveland Browns ring of honor.

The double standards are glaring here.

But for all Brown's good deeds and athletic prowess, there appears to be a dark side to him as well. He has been frequently accused of violent crimes, primarily toward women.

An 18-year-old accused Brown of forcing her to have sex after giving her whisky, but a jury found him innocent of assault and battery in the 10-day trial in 1965. He was accused of throwing his girlfriend from a balcony in 1968, but when the 22-year-old woman refused to name Brown as her assailant, the charge of assault with intent to murder was dropped. He was fined $300 for resisting a deputy.

Brown was acquitted of assaulting a man after a traffic accident in 1969. He was fined $500 and spent a day in jail after beating up a golfing partner in 1978. He was charged with rape, sexual battery and assault in 1985, but the charges were dropped when the 33-year-old woman gave inconsistent testimony.

The next year, he was arrested for allegedly beating his fiancée after accusing her of flirting. He spent three hours in jail, but three days later the 21-year-old woman said she didn't want to prosecute.

In October 1999, Brown was convicted in Los Angeles of smashing the window of his 25-year-old wife Monique's car, but was acquitted of making terrorist threats against her. The judge sentenced him to three years' probation, stripped him of his driver's license for a year, fined him $1,700 to be paid to a battered woman's shelter and a domestic abuse fund, and ordered him to attend special counseling for domestic batterers.

When Brown refused counseling, he was given a six-month sentence. He was released from jail in Ventura County (California) in July 2002 after serving less than four months.

Debra Clark, 22, locked herself in a room of the house and called police at 4:40 a.m. When officers arrived, she met them in front of the house, armed with a gun. Police Sgt. John Zrofsky said the 5-foot-1-inch Clark showed signs of a beating and was taken for photographs before being given medical treatment.

From a 1986 Sport magazine profile of Brown, republished on Deadspin in 2014:

According to Clark, Brown had been drinking and accused her of having paid too much attention to male patrons at the Sports Connection earlier that day. She said Brown had pummeled and kicked her in a jealous rage.

Clark, who wound up with a scratch under one eye, a bruised arm, and a possible cracked rib, identified herself as Brown’s fiancée and said they had planned to be married the following day, her birthday.

“I have also slapped other women,” he wrote. “And I never should have, and I never should have slapped Eva, no matter how crazy we were at the time. I don’t think any man should slap a woman. In a perfect world, I don’t think any man should slap anyone. . . . I don’t start fights, but sometimes I don’t walk away from them. It hasn’t happened in a long time, but it’s happened, and I regret those times. I should have been more in control of myself, stronger, more adult.”
 

tapeANaspirin2it

Well-known member
What if this is how Goodell keeps power? He seems like an incompetent politician to me, yet he keeps power. Could it be that he has 20 years of private emails written by owners and key personnel who are not tech savvy due to their age and had no idea that emails were kept forever?

if you recall, that’s how Kap and the other disingenuous kneeler got paid in their lawsuit. The NFL told them to pound sand but then they were granted discovery of league emails and the NFL caved to avoid that stuff being leaked. It was probably tons on inappropriate jokes and porn heavy browser histories.

Maybe Goodell keeps power holding that same info over their heads.
 

ZonaBurgh

Well-known member
What if this is how Goodell keeps power? He seems like an incompetent politician to me, yet he keeps power. Could it be that he has 20 years of private emails written by owners and key personnel who are not tech savvy due to their age and had no idea that emails were kept forever?

if you recall, that’s how Kap and the other disingenuous kneeler got paid in their lawsuit. The NFL told them to pound sand but then they were granted discovery of league emails and the NFL caved to avoid that stuff being leaked. It was probably tons on inappropriate jokes and porn heavy browser histories.

Maybe Goodell keeps power holding that same info over their heads.
f7FdEdG.jpg
If it weren't for the Steelers, the NFL would be dead to me.
 

SteelerInLebanon

Well-known member
HAHAHAHAHA tough time holding a job. I move forward Stewey. Working at the same company for 20 years doesn't work in IT unless that individual likes to settle for with the job and just be happy. That's not me.

I'm not Coach so please do not make assumptions about my job or career - I've been transparent w/ everyone here from Day 1.
Ahh but what kind of luxury car do you drive?
 

Ron Burgundy

Well-known member
What if this is how Goodell keeps power? He seems like an incompetent politician to me, yet he keeps power. Could it be that he has 20 years of private emails written by owners and key personnel who are not tech savvy due to their age and had no idea that emails were kept forever?

if you recall, that’s how Kap and the other disingenuous kneeler got paid in their lawsuit. The NFL told them to pound sand but then they were granted discovery of league emails and the NFL caved to avoid that stuff being leaked. It was probably tons on inappropriate jokes and porn heavy browser histories.

Maybe Goodell keeps power holding that same info over their heads.
If it wasn't that, at the very least there is collusion on signing players (or not signing them). MLB lost that lawsuit big-time about 20 years ago.
 

Drink IRON City

Contributor whining about a tag
Jim Brown has done / been a piece poop forever. I remember some of his interviews as he came off arrogant as hell. Even as a Hollywood actor he was crap person and arrogant.

Other than his ability on the field, he wasn't someone you'd bragg about.





Salute the nation
 

jitter77

Well-known member
If emails / txts are done on company computers or phones they are not "private." Whatever is said on there is fair game to come out. If you publicly post stuff on social media or whatever and receive backlash for it again that is on you. The more that comes out the worse it looks for Gruden, but i guarantee there are other juicy emails on there from others. Not really sure why Gruden was chosen as the lone fall guy
 

FatsHolmes

Active member
If emails / txts are done on company computers or phones they are not "private." Whatever is said on there is fair game to come out. If you publicly post stuff on social media or whatever and receive backlash for it again that is on you. The more that comes out the worse it looks for Gruden, but i guarantee there are other juicy emails on there from others. Not really sure why Gruden was chosen as the lone fall guy
He's an easy scapegoat. The league doesn't want to start a precedent of going after high-level employees (including possibly the owner) of a team. A coach - meh - no big loss.
 

Steeltime

Right (Adj.) Correct/Left (V) Depart, abandon
I respectfully disagree.

1. If I have an employee that beats his spouse/partner in his/her private life - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???

A few employers that have very high security needs - those contracted with military for example - care if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Most companies care if you have been convicted of a felony for any number of reasons, including bonding. However, most states have privacy laws, some set forth in the Constitution, that protects against unreasonable intrusions into private life unless directly related to a specific job requirement, such as those I mentioned.

In other words, I think you are wrong for the vast majority of employees.

Also, words that somebody finds offensive but are not threatening and incapable of being read as threatening are never, in any circumstance, subject to criminal charges nor are they remotely similar to what you list. You engage in a bit of a logical fallacy comparing words to physical attacks.

2. If I have an employee that sells illegal drugs on his/her private time - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???

See above. Is the crime a felony or a misdemeanor? Does the employer have a reason to care about the activity, particularly where it has not resulted in a conviction? How is your example remotely similar to non-threatening words in an e-mail?

Also, be careful what you wish for, Berm. The law of unintended consequences tends to be a tsunami that destroys vastly more than the original action was meant to protect.

3. If I have an employee that has a garage full of explosive materials, high-powered rifles, and what ever else could be life threatening - is that not the employers business - if they post this on Twitter/IG/YouTube/etc...???

Again, see above. Is what you are listing even illegal? "High-powered rifles"? You mean like hunters with a .308 or .30-06? I think that may be mentioned in the Constitution thing somewhere.

These scenarios could go on and on. How would you feel if you family member was on the wrong end of any of the 3 scenarios above? I bet you'd want to take up arms and get a pound of flesh like another red-blooded American man/woman.

Not a logic-based argument. You are appealing to emotion. "What if your daughter was raped?!?"

Me? I might borrow that .308 you say should get me in trouble.

The fact of the matter is times have changed, GLOBALLY, and the US is not the only country that has been or is currently subjected to employers doing their due diligence.

"Due diligence" for investigating criminal behavior is vastly different than hunting out thought crimes, i.e.., words that have no threatening or harmful effect. Maybe the real problem is that a generation of "participation trophy" lightweights are unable to take criticism or harsh comments.

Another fun fact - we do not require a picture ID on resumes in the US. Guess how many countries do? Too many put in this post is the answer.

Not requiring a picture is a good thing and harmless, intended to allay possible racial prejudice, but a news alert here - based on my involvement with employment litigation for the past 12 years - pictures are not needed. I'm not being rude but does any person on earth think it is difficult to determine the race of an applicant named "Shaniqua" as opposed to "Terrance"?

Gruden and any other figure in the public limelight 'has to be smarter than the average person' because they're under instant scrutiny anyway.

Did you know that the FBI background check goes back 15 years from the day of submitting your data???

Depends on the job and the state, Berm. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges, or more accurately bicycles, when you are looking at jobs involving national security and state secrets vs. the other 99.9% of jobs in America.

And by that I mean that 99.9% of jobs DON'T INVOLVE AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK.

The outrage here is really unbelievable if you look at this holistically...

I don't think "outrage" is the tenor of the criticism directed at the vindictive nature of the punishment for thought crimes. People have compared Gruden's dumb comments to those accused of actually hurting people - accused of assault. The former is forced out, the latter still gets paid and nothing is said about them.

That's a problem. I think it is damn time to tell the thought police to fuck off. If speech is non-violent, non-threatening, and does not violate any law, then nobody should be punished for offering such speech.

Why? Because there are no rules governing these "thought crime" punishments, Berm. I know you think there are, but there aren't. We can simply make up thought crimes at our leisure and look to ruin the lives of people we have disagreements with under the guise of "fairness." That is a scary scenario and one that should not be allowed.
 
Last edited:

Badcat

Well-known member
Is it worth it to even have a VPN IYO? I use Bitdefender. I'm not an IT expert but I know these damn phones are basically tracking devices.
It's all about the cypher suite that it uses. If it uses RSA, AES256, and an MD5 hash you're solid. BUT, the FBI has ways around even VPNs and other "secure" communications like Signal. I'll post the article for you below. Hell, the FBI creates it's own secure messaging apps like ANON and cracked on rival apps in order to force criminal elements to use theirs. NOTHING is secure anymore.

 

tapeANaspirin2it

Well-known member
Security is always a balancing act. When i'm carrying groceries, i'd love to just turn the knob and be in my house. But that would mean leaving my door unlocked. I have decided that giving up that bit freedom is worth it. I also accept that putting a case on my phone basically doubles it's weight and makes it much bulkier to carry, but I realize that it's necessary to protect against the near certainty that i will drop my phone from time to time.

We want law enforcement to be able access, with court approval, the private data of people who are legitimately being investigated for a crime. We recognize this is necessary to catch bad guys. Most rational people view bad guys as people who are plotting actual crimes. The problem now is there are people in power who view crimes as doing or saying something they disagree with. That is dangerous.

I honestly don't understand how anybody is OK with how this went down. How can you not be afraid of the ramifications of making it standard procedure that at any time, your private communications can be used to ruin your life? How do you not understand that this only leads to everybody being muzzled.

It should also be pointed out that values change. By this logic Barack Obama should be cancelled too because he was against gay marriage when he was first elected. Remember, actions don't matter, apologies or changing your behavior doesn't matter. You're done for what they found 10 years ago.

You've seen it right in this thread. Those defending this basically saying just watch what you say...at all times. Just be a good Stepford Wife and you'll have no problems.

Whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist
becomes
Whoso would be allowed to be non-binary person must be a scared conformist....Or else.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Top