If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
When you discuss deflatgate with non football fans
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?
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.
Re: When you discuss deflatgate with non football fans
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?
With the Patriots on Thursday saying plenty about the words and intentions of suspended-without-pay employees John Jastremski and Jim McNally, some are wondering whether at some point either or both men will break their silence, via media interviews.
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.
YardRat Wall of Fame #56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
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.
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.
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?
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 Wall of Fame #56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
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.
YardRat Wall of Fame #56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
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.
Tweet
Comment