Where did you say it? Read on...
See? He's your "expert". He went to Football Pundit U and I didn't so what do I know, huh? Ever heard of the Appeal to Expertise? Guess what it is?What I said is (and THIS is a direct quote) "I believe that Peter King has much better connections in the league than you or anyone else here, and I bet a dime to a dollar you do not personally know nor have you talked to one NFL player, official or league employee....ever. Nor do they know you. Peter King talks to all of them, and is known on a first name basis throughout the NFL."
For his "supposed" expertise...THAT is why I link to what he writes.
"I trust a man who's proved many times he's willing to admit when he's been wrong more than I trust a man I've never been able to prove has been wrong!"Nonsense. I have read Peter King for quite some time, and he is easily the most credible sports writer in the country with the very best connections. He is ruthlessly honest, and regularly goes back and shows when he wrote something in the past that was wrong. A trait you would be wise to mimmic.
Makes total sense. Really. Anyone who has never admitted to being wrong can't be trusted, even if he's never been wrong, because I'm wrong sometimes, and no one can be smarter than ME!" LOL!
Saying it's significant is coming to a conclusion, and a set of facts followed by a conclusion is an argument. And I sure hope you understand that an argument is something different than bickering (God, I can't believe I even have to explain this)...Stating your conclusion before making your case is disingenuous, ie pimping your argument.Mr. King starts out his "argument" (it really is not an "argument"...that is your word...it is reporting facts, saying that "this is significant" because IT IS SIGNIFICANT!!
I explained quite clearly why Pete's conclusions are not warranted by the facts he presented. Facts followed by a conclusion may be an argument, but it doesn't mean it's a valid one. The conclusion needs to make sense. In Pete's case it doesn't, but it doesn't stop him from saying it does, because he knows guys like you WANT TO BELIEVE the Pats are cheaters.And he goes on to explain WHY the facts are "significant"...because "it takes weather-as-a-factor out of the possible reasons why New England’s footballs could have lost air while the balls on Indianapolis’ sidelines would have stayed fully inflated."
In fact, the reason that you have to pre-empt the factual reporting of King is because the facts show that your theory was wrong.
Oooo, Pete has "sources" and I don't. Half a century of watching football and a do2en years writing about it is MEANINGLESS! Because Pete has SOURCES within the NFL!Again, if you have better sources, we would all love to hear them. Now you are just blustering because you have nothing, except stuff that you pulled out of your ass.
I'm so ashamed of disagreeing with him. What was I thinking?
For the umpteenth time, I'm told I have to admit I was wrong to prove something to the people that are consistently wrong.You just can't accept the truth and facts simply because they go against your faulty premise, huh. Be a man for once and admit you were, and are wrong.
Sorry, not gonna do it.
But is is interesting seeing you resort to right-wing debate tactics - tactics YOU quite rightly reject out of hand when they're used on you in the politics forum. What is it about football that triggers the Mr Jekyll in you?
Why is it that Americans think it's totally okay to believe some things without evidence and not others?Yes, the Pats cheated.
Saddm has WMDs. I bet Peter King thought so too...
The rules are the rules and nothing I've seen so far indicates they broke them. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?The rules are quite clear. The Pats broke them, which makes them cheaters, and the Colts did not.
I provided an explanation for my position, you are just making a declaration without an explanation of why I'm wrong. Gotta do better...No....you are 100% wrong.
"Wah, wah, wah, why won't you let ME win for once? It's NOT FAIR!"No, you have not shown anything except your usual annoying habit of refusing to admit you are wrong even when all the evidence shows you were wrong. So...refuse to admit you were, and are wrong...I don't care. You were still wrong.
The only one suffering from "sour grapes bull****" is you.
"How can you say they're enemies when Kraft supports Goodell" Duh. Goodell is the COMMISSIONER of the league and it demeans the league if the Commissioner looks bad. Kraft's allegiance is to his team and the league. If that means he has to shake Goodell's hand and pat him on the back once in a while, he'll do it. Doesn't mean Kraft doesn't think Goodell's a snake...This is the silliest premise of all. Goodell has a very close relationship with the Pats owner, Bob Kraft. It was Bob Kraft who came put strongly, in public, to defend Goodell when the Rice controversy hit. He was by his side in facing the press to defend him.
Nope.If anything, Goodell's motivation would be 180 degrees opposite.
If you refuse to acknowledge the reality of what happened with Spygate because you hate the Pats, you are just revealing your agenda to those of us that DO KNOW what happened.Listen, if you want to defend the Pats for cheating, now and the last time they were caught stealing signs, that's your business.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!I criticize the Pats, not because they are the Pats, but because they have damaged the integrity of the game.
(catching my breath....)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
I guess as a salesman, you have experience saying things like this with a straight face, huh?I don't care what team was found to do this cheating, my message would be the same.
And yours is an embarrassment, but heay, you already have Losmania on your resume, so it's not gonna make a significant blot on your copybook.Your argument is nonsense.
We've seen what you're capable of when it comes to issues of love and hate, haven't we?