When you discuss deflatgate with non football fans

[Mace]

WTF is it with you guys, that you'll abandon all pretences of intellectual honesty when you want something bad enough?

It's like America isn't really a country of adults, it's a country of physically mature children.

I sure can't understand how that happened, but it sure did. Gives your political arguments more context too.

[ICRockets]

So, aside from THIS issue, you can't think of a specific incidence of me not allowing someone to "win", even though they deserved it? Is this correct?

You're really this hard up for an argument that you need to have one about arguments?

[CommissarSpartacus]

You're really this hard up for an argument that you need to have one about arguments?

You're the one who claimed I never let anyone win, as if winning is my overriding concern and my arguments are merely designed to maintain my superiority.

Am I not allowed a single example?

As for your complaints about my process, people complain all the time because I won't say what they want me to say, they want me to commit to a position that's silly to take because the evidence doesn't warrant it. But that doesn't mean an educated opinion can't be put forward based on what we know and what our knowledge of human natures teaches us.

Now, for the record, I am no particular fan of Tom Brady or the Pats, nor do I hate them.

Whereas you guys hate them with a passion, all the way back to "Let them have it" and the Tuck rule.

So, who do you think an independent arbitrator would decide who could be more objective about the issue, you or me?

[ICRockets]

You're the one who claimed I never let anyone win, as if winning is my overriding concern and my arguments are merely designed to maintain my superiority.

Am I not allowed a single example?

As for your complaints about my process, people complain all the time because I won't say what they want me to say, they want me to commit to a position that's silly to take because the evidence doesn't warrant it. But that doesn't mean an educated opinion can't be put forward based on what we know and what our knowledge of human natures teaches us.

Now, for the record, I am no particular fan of Tom Brady or the Pats, nor do I hate them.

Whereas you guys hate them with a passion, all the way back to "Let them have it" and the Tuck rule.

So, who do you think an independent arbitrator would decide who could be more objective about the issue, you or me?

Nobody is denying that your objectivity is greater than ours. We're just in disagreement that such a fact must necessarily mean you're more likely to be right. YardRat tries to be "objective" in the sense that he seeks the middle in basically every argument. We both know that doesn't make him right more often. The possibility exists, and I contend that it is a strong one, that the Patriots intentionally deflated balls below the legal limit allowed by the NFL. Furthermore, if it happened, the evidence in the Wells Report indicates that Tom Brady very likely knew about and signed off on it.

Your arguments to the contrary are not particularly compelling if you're not willing to stick with them long enough for us to have a real conversation about them. You can't just say, "this may have happened, but i don't know if it did" and then tell us that you have any certainty that what the Wells Report suggests definitely DIDN'T occur.

[ICRockets]

After all, if anybody isn't objective, it's Patriots fans. How can you point to our opinions and tell us we're wrong because of our bias, and then see something like this and think it passes muster?

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/291...dium=Faceboook

[YardRat]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...or-jastremski/

Chances are that Jastremski and McNally signed documents upon being hired by the Patriots (or at some point thereafter) preventing them from making public comments about their work with the team. And they’ve likely both been reminded about those commitments in recent days, especially after being suspended without pay.

Of course, that doesn’t stop either or both from talking. But the Patriots, who have demonstrated a significant level of zeal and motivation in connection with the defense of their position that nothing improper occurred, would possibly be able to unleash a storm of lawyers who could sue Jastremski or McNally into oblivion — if they’ve previously committed in writing to do no talking of any kind.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Nobody is denying that your objectivity is greater than ours. We're just in disagreement that such a fact must necessarily mean you're more likely to be right.

Why wouldn't my objectivity make it more likely than not that I'm correct? If objectivity doesn't offer any practical advantages, then what's it good for? It doesn't NECESSARILY mean I'm correct but it certainly gives me a better shot than just pulling things out of my ass. And then, when you add my track record, you'd think people that disagree with me would think twice about what I'm saying rather than just attacking.

YardRat tries to be "objective" in the sense that he seeks the middle in basically every argument. We both know that doesn't make him right more often.

He's coming around, albeit slowly, but it is a knee-jerk reaction one can train themselves out of. Lecter has managed, but the attraction of hiding in the middle because it's safe is quite powerful.

The possibility exists, and I contend that it is a strong one, that the Patriots intentionally deflated balls below the legal limit allowed by the NFL.

I agree the possibility exists, but I wouldn't call it either strong or weak. Admitting the possibility exists is an objective assessment, but adding the adjective strong is unjustified at this point and requires a value judgment based on feelings

Furthermore, if it happened, the evidence in the Wells Report indicates that Tom Brady very likely knew about and signed off on it.

Again, no one will address the obvious question. Why would Tom Brady represent the qbs in their petition to change the rules for the preparation of footballs in order to make it easier to handle the ball and not address the inflation issue at the same time? Why would he push a rule change he fully intended to break? Makes no sense, unless of course Tom Brady somehow KNEW 8 years ago, before ANY of the stats geeks, that taking a little air out of the football would make a huge difference to the fumble numbers. Personally, my inclination is toward Brady changing the rule in good faith but became exasperated with the officials sloppiness with the inflations and told the boys to do what was necessary to make sure the balls weren't OVER-inflated.

And if a player has to do something surrepticious to ensure that a rule is followed correctly, then that's the league's fault, not the player's.

Remember, all these "officials" are basically amateurs. Who they are, why they're chosen and their level of competence is a result of a multi-billion dollar operation cheaping out. And now they're smearing possibly their greatest player ever as a result.

Your arguments to the contrary are not particularly compelling if you're not willing to stick with them long enough for us to have a real conversation about them.

Sorry, but my experience has been that very few people want to have a real conversation with me about the subject, they would rather declaim and express their outrage. When they find out that doesn't work, then they break out the argument that the accusation in and of itself is proof of guilt. Then, when that doesn't work, they start with the "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. Then the personal attacks. This is why we have to argue about the arguments. Because people would rather win than be contradicted.

You can't just say, "this may have happened, but i don't know if it did" and then tell us that you have any certainty that what the Wells Report suggests definitely DIDN'T occur.

Excuse me? Didn't the Wells report say "this may have happened, but i don't know if it did"? And yet you are willing to embrace Ted Wells while critici2ing me for the same thing.

Why? Because you, and the rest of the haters WANT Ted Wells to be right and you WANT me to be wrong.

[CommissarSpartacus]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...or-jastremski/

Chances are that Jastremski and McNally signed documents upon being hired by the Patriots (or at some point thereafter) preventing them from making public comments about their work with the team. And they’ve likely both been reminded about those commitments in recent days, especially after being suspended without pay.

Of course, that doesn’t stop either or both from talking. But the Patriots, who have demonstrated a significant level of zeal and motivation in connection with the defense of their position that nothing improper occurred, would possibly be able to unleash a storm of lawyers who could sue Jastremski or McNally into oblivion — if they’ve previously committed in writing to do no talking of any kind.

Chances are? Not quite. Rather "it's a possibility".

Of course it's possible to insist that employees of any business might be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, but there isn't a court in the land that would uphold it if the person was revealing massive wrong-doing by the people that demanded the document.

Non-disclosure agreements are to make sure that valid intellectual property and privacy rights are upheld, not to prevent people from revealing wrong-doing.

I think it's much more likely that the Pats would use the carrot rather than the stick in this situation.

Keep your mouths shut and you'll be well rewarded.

[CommissarSpartacus]

After all, if anybody isn't objective, it's Patriots fans. How can you point to our opinions and tell us we're wrong because of our bias, and then see something like this and think it passes muster?

http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/291...dium=Faceboook

You're making fun of a woman's dying wishes?

That's pretty cold, don't you think?

[HHURRICANE]

You're making fun of a woman's dying wishes?

That's pretty cold, don't you think?

I'm sure he is but I will. She's an idiot.

[YardRat]

Chances are? Not quite. Rather "it's a possibility".

Of course it's possible to insist that employees of any business might be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, but there isn't a court in the land that would uphold it if the person was revealing massive wrong-doing by the people that demanded the document.

Non-disclosure agreements are to make sure that valid intellectual property and privacy rights are upheld, not to prevent people from revealing wrong-doing.

I think it's much more likely that the Pats would use the carrot rather than the stick in this situation.

Keep your mouths shut and you'll be well rewarded.

IMO Florio used the term 'chances are' because it's a common practice, and yes, I haven't been able to find anything definitive that would overcome "it's a possibility". Also, I agree, there are 'whistle-blower' laws on the books that would probably work in the two's favor in a court, but I would guess only if they came forward under terms that didn't include personal financial gain.

[YardRat]

Nobody is denying that your objectivity is greater than ours. We're just in disagreement that such a fact must necessarily mean you're more likely to be right. YardRat tries to be "objective" in the sense that he seeks the middle in basically every argument. We both know that doesn't make him right more often. The possibility exists, and I contend that it is a strong one, that the Patriots intentionally deflated balls below the legal limit allowed by the NFL. Furthermore, if it happened, the evidence in the Wells Report indicates that Tom Brady very likely knew about and signed off on it.

Your arguments to the contrary are not particularly compelling if you're not willing to stick with them long enough for us to have a real conversation about them. You can't just say, "this may have happened, but i don't know if it did" and then tell us that you have any certainty that what the Wells Report suggests definitely DIDN'T occur.

Well, it's more 'balance' than 'the middle', but I know you dislike it when I use that term. Perhaps 'equilibrium' would be better.

[CommissarSpartacus]

I'm sure he is but I will. She's an idiot.

Jesus takes note of stuff like this.

[CommissarSpartacus]

IMO Florio used the term 'chances are' because it's a common practice, and yes, I haven't been able to find anything definitive that would overcome "it's a possibility". Also, I agree, there are 'whistle-blower' laws on the books that would probably work in the two's favor in a court, but I would guess only if they came forward under terms that didn't include personal financial gain.

Hey, if an ex-Navy Seal can write a book about killing Bin Laden (whether true or false), McNally can write a book about deflating Tommy's balls.

[better days]

Jesus takes note of stuff like this.

If that is the case, then no doubt Jesus also takes note of CHEATERS & those that support CHEATERS & CHEATING.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Well, it's more 'balance' than 'the middle', but I know you dislike it when I use that term. Perhaps 'equilibrium' would be better.

Without equilibrium, you fall off the fence.

[CommissarSpartacus]

If that is the case, then no doubt Jesus also takes note of CHEATERS & those that support CHEATERS & CHEATING.

He also notes those who bear false witness, so you better hope you're right.

[better days]

He also notes those who bear false witness, so you better hope you're right.

Exactly right, CHEATERS supporters bearing FALSE witness.

[HHURRICANE]

Jesus takes note of stuff like this.

Dude I've been watching you hog this site defending Brady and your other BS for weeks now. Some lady leaves in her obituary that Brady is innocent and that's not idiotic?

Jesus has nothing to do with this.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Dude I've been watching you hog this site defending Brady and your other BS for weeks now. Some lady leaves in her obituary that Brady is innocent and that's not idiotic?

Jesus has nothing to do with this.

Hog the site?

What is it with you guys and hyperbole? Do you think the more absurd your rhetoric, the stronger your case?