Darren Waller suspended

Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,398
dressedcheeseside said:
What? We're talking about a specific case that we have zero facts other than "breaking team rules." To jump to the conclusion that it is drug related just because a mysterious former AD's random, general statement about suspensions is the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

I never tied it to Waller...all I said was what I read one time.

Whatever YOU implied from it is on you. Waller could have eaten more than his share of donuts for all we know...
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,247
Techster said:
I never tied it to Waller...all I said was what I read one time.

Whatever YOU implied from it is on you. Waller could have eaten more than his share of donuts for all we know...
Click to expand...
Then why did you even bring it up in a discussion of Darren Waller's suspension? That, alone, implies it pertains to Waller.

Not only that, but you brought it up in response to two previous comments: one which assumed the suspension was drug related and another that suggested it is unfair to assume it.

Btw, I didn't "imply" anything. My guess is you meant to say assume. Maybe you meant to say I shouldn't assume you implied it was applicable to Waller. In any case, you used the wrong word. Furthermore, you actually did imply it as I just showed. No other meaning could be assumed.
 
GT Man

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
Stephen-Colbert-Popcorn.gif
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,398
dressedcheeseside said:
Then why did you even bring it up in a discussion of Darren Waller's suspension? That, alone, implies it pertains to Waller.

Not only that, but you brought it up in response to two previous comments: one which assumed the suspension was drug related and another that suggested it is unfair to assume it.

Btw, I didn't "imply" anything. My guess is you meant to say assume. Maybe you meant to say I shouldn't assume you implied it was applicable to Waller. In any case, you used the wrong word. Furthermore, you actually did imply it as I just showed. No other meaning could be assumed.
Click to expand...

Haha...wow, you're really reaching here.

I mean, no thread has never had a side discussion about other things not related to a thread. Get over yourself.
 

Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau

Banned
Messages
2,077
dressedcheeseside said:
Then why did you even bring it up in a discussion of Darren Waller's suspension? That, alone, implies it pertains to Waller.

Not only that, but you brought it up in response to two previous comments: one which assumed the suspension was drug related and another that suggested it is unfair to assume it.

Btw, I didn't "imply" anything. My guess is you meant to say assume. Maybe you meant to say I shouldn't assume you implied it was applicable to Waller. In any case, you used the wrong word. Furthermore, you actually did imply it as I just showed. No other meaning could be assumed.
Click to expand...

Not "assume". You meant to say "infer" as in "I didn't infer anything from your implication that Waller's violation of team rules was drug related."
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,247
Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau said:
Not "assume". You meant to say "infer" as in "I didn't infer anything from your implication that Waller's violation of team rules was drug related."
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but your example is wrong. Why would I say I didn't infer something from an implication? An implication is something that is implied. If something is implied then it is meant to be inferred.

Semantics aside, it is wrong to think Waller's suspension is drug related without any evidence whatsoever that suggests it. It is even more wrong to spread such baseless, harmful suppositions on a public forum.
 
Top