” …because of the fact that we all of a sudden disagree about something – you now accuse me of censorship.”
No, not because we disagree, (pulling my hair), but because you “excised” (OK?) my comment. If you are insulted at being accused of censoring my comment, then how exactly does a reader approach you about their comment being “excised”? How do we dress up the question?
My post was right on the money. It was a current news report of a man defending his daughter from “what he saw” as an attack on his 7 year old daughter. I am not a troll (my point in referencing previous comments here, not as a license to breaking “off topic” restrictions) and the only sin I committed was snarkly pointing to an example of a similar situation that I expected you go in reverse on.

BS, Mike. There were several disagreements in this thread (as there have been in others) that went on for several posts before there was an implied agreement to agree to disagree. So it’s not about my “position being lampooned” (not that that happened)- it’s about you going off topic and me editing your post for it. And then you made the assumption that because you and I generally agree on the issues that you would somehow be immune from being edited. That is not how it works here.

If you don’t like what I did here, too bad. I don’t appreciate that – because of the fact that we all of a sudden disagree about something – you now accuse me of censorship. You might want to revisit the comments in this thread for the number of times I have explained and defended my position and the opposing comments of people who didn’t agree with me before you make inaccurate statements about my “censoring” again.

I haven’t “censored” any of your retorts, either – a quick perusal noting your prior comment in this thread about the people in it being “clueless” (your description) should clear that up.

I think the Mary Mapes comparison was unwarranted.

Forgive me, I know and agree with you on most every topic you blog about, but your standard of proof reminds me of Mary Mapes standard that President Bush or his supporters have to prove the CBS memo wasn’t fake instead of her having to prove that it’s real.

That seems to be what you’re saying. That the man has to prove he wasn’t drunk when the standard of proof lies with the person making the accusation as well it should.

Thank God we don’t have that standard of proof in a court of law or else a lot of people would be making a lot of accusations against people they don’t like.

You could accuse anyone of anything and then demand that they prove it’s not true. How can you prove a negative?

Anyway, I’ll stop now. I’ve said all I wanted.

Take care.

The drunk thing is a he said/he said. He could have been told the guy was drunk and gone with it. How many times have you been told someone was drunk and didn’t question it? Did you say so to your friends “hey, that guy is drunk”? I notice you’re willing to accept the guys’ word that he wasn’t drunk, but unwilling to accept Davis’ that he was.

When he didn’t take precautionary steps to keep her from making an a** of herself he consciously chose to take the chance that she wouldn’t cause trouble.

It’s like if you have a dog that has a history of biting people. If you know your dog has a history of biting people and you don’t go out of your way to restrain the animal then you are negligent when the animal bites someone else.

As for, “Where has it been determined that he was not drunk?”

He has to prove he wasn’t drunk? Perhaps someone could go on national media, accuse you of something less than flattering and let’s see if you feel the need to prove that it’s not true. When you accuse someone of something it’s generally considered reasonable to have some proof. Otherwise it’s known as a smear or in this case, defamation and libelous.

I respect your opinion, but in the end, I will refer you to the aforementioned dog analogy. Mr. Davis was negligent because he had to have known his wife is, apparently, mentally unstable and unable to control herself. She does have a history and he had to have known that she was prone to such behavior.

Again, he did the right thing at the time, but allowing her to sit in the stands was a gamble that he had to have known he was taking.

So we should not be complained about his (at the time potential) suspension because his wife has a history of being a nuisance?

“If I were the fan and I had been libeled and defamed in the national media, called a drunk and accused of assaulting a female, I would be suing these two as well.”

Where has it been determined that he was not drunk?

“Mrs. Davis caused every bit of this. Her behavior should be the focus of blog entries instead of calls to “Let him play.”"

If you want to start a campaign against Davis wife, feel free but this person at this blog feels that Davis was in the right for what he did, regardless of his wife’s behavior – that’s why I posted what I did. His wife’s behavior, while obviously wrong in retrospect, was not the issue. The issue was Davis went into the stands because he saw an altercation occuring that involved his wife. I’ve accepted the suspension but I sure as heck hope the thought of being suspended wouldn’t stop someone from defending their wife if they felt it was necessary. It’s almost like worrying about whether or not you’ll (general you) be charged with assault for decking a guy for messing with your wife.

This woman caused every bit of this. From beginning to end. She caused her husband to be suspended and for her family to lose $700,000. That’s how much money he will lose as a result of the suspension.

Now if I were her husband, publicly I would defend her, of course, but privately I would chew her a** for being so stupid.

This is Terrell Owens (ex-Philadelphia Eagle) type behavior and she needs some counseling.

I never criticized Mr. Davis. I know he did what he was supposed to do, but some of the commenters here were blaming the wrong person.

If I were the fan and I had been libeled and defamed in the national media, called a drunk and accused of assaulting a female, I would be suing these two as well.

Mrs. Davis caused every bit of this. Her behavior should be the focus of blog entries instead of calls to “Let him play.”

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time and especially if your wife has severe personality disorders.

I’m fine with the suspension as I realize it had to be done, but somehow I don’t think the idea of a five game suspension should or would hinder a player going into the stands to help his wife or any other family member they see in an altercation. I know it wouldn’t stop me. If I witnessed someone I cared about in trouble, I would rely on my gut instincts and deal with the ‘consequences’ later. Davis wife might have issues keeping her mouth shut, but to repeat what I said earlier, it’s about what he saw.

No one should be defending this lady. She is in the wrong here.