Relax Guppy

George1963 wrote:

They did it. They cheat. The league knows it, TB and BB know it, everybody knows it.



Since you brought up "pathetic", you are actually the pathetic one here, acting less like an adult, and more like a run-of-the-mill internet troll who has memorized only one word, "cheater".  Just like those half witted internet trolls you offer ZERO beyond your desperate cries of "cheaters". 

You want to know who the REAL "cheaters" are?  Its the people -- like you -- who, with their phony, manufactured outrage, make up their own reality, and then pass it off as truth. 

Oh, you're entitled to your opinion alright.  But what you're not entitled to is your own set of facts.  You haven't quite grasped that.  Not sure if you ever will.  Using made up facts as the basis of an opinion -- as you do -- is the REAL "cheating". 

What "cheating" did the Patriots do exactly?  In what game?  Show me your proof, show me your evidence.  Not your wild assumptions and wishful thinking. 

No, wait.  Strike all that. 

I don't want your "explanation".  There is nothing to debate or discuss.  There is no asterisk.  There is no taint.  None of your childish, holier than thou ramblings based entirely on a perverted sense of self-righteousness can change that.  The Patriots do not, and did not, cheat.  They broke one stupid rule seven and a half freaking years ago, and that issue has been dead for all that time.  Even the IRS does not require you to keep your tax returns longer than seven years back.  Give it up already.  Other than that old dead spygate horse which has been beaten to death, you cannot site one -- NOT ONE -- instance of the New England Patriots having been found to have broken a rule. 

Sorry, but BB, TB and the organization are the direct opposite of what you say.  They are the gold standard, the model franchise.  I don't care if that comes off as arrogant or obnoxious.  Deal with it.  Lord knows I've dealt with your arrogance and obnoxiousness.   

In order for me to debate an issue I require at least a minimum level of common sense and intelligence from the other party.  Your phony, fraudulent, baseless slander fails that test miserably.  So, bottom line, I'm not interested in expending any more energy to provide counter points and counter arguments to your ridiculousness.  Any high school kid could easily do that.  Your baseless generalizations, like those quoted above, look so ridiculous on their own that they collapse on their own.  Its embarrassing really.   


I didn't think it was possible, but after their respective losses to the Patriots, Terrell Suggs and Richard Sherman actually showed more class than you have.  Not hard to do, since you've shown none at all.


By the way, did you know with an average roster age of 25.2, the Patriots are the YOUNGEST TEAM IN HISTORY TO WIN A SUPERBOWL?  Yup, can you say, "See you next year"?


And finally, you do know its "Patriots Week" all this week on NFL Network, right? 

Enjoy it.  I know I am. 

Do me a favor and let me know when its "Colts Week" on NFL Network, as being a football fan, I wouldn't want to miss that.




"Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them." 

                                                                           - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

George1963 wrote:They broke one stupid rule seven and a half freaking years ago, and that issue has been dead for all that time


Apparently not. I guess I'm not the only person who's still irked by it


"still irked by it".   That's your problem right there.  At least you've identified it.  I suggest seeking help.  Otherwise you're going to be "irked by it" for the remainder of your days, and be forever living out your fandom with a sour attitude and blinded to a lot of fantastic sports history playing out in front of you.


Meanwhile, I'm immensely enjoying living in the midst of the kind of greatness that comes around once in a generation - maybe.    ORR, BIRD, PAPI, BRADY.  The Mount Rushmore of Boston sports heroes in my lifetime.  You think I'm going to let my enjoyment of the glory days get sidetracked one iota by some irrelevant nonsense?  Think again. 

George1963 wrote:In order for me to debate an issue I require at least a minimum level of common sense and intelligence from the other party.


OK, Let's go with that. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick said the first they'd heard of any of this was the day after the game.
Do you believe that?
Your answer will go a long way towards establishing your
"common sense and intelligence".

George1963 wrote:In order for me to debate an issue I require at least a minimum level of common sense and intelligence from the other party.


OK, Let's go with that. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick said the first they'd heard of any of this was the day after the game.
Do you believe that?
Your answer will go a long way towards establishing your
"common sense and intelligence".

George1963 wrote:

George1963 wrote:In order for me to debate an issue I require at least a minimum level of common sense and intelligence from the other party.


OK, Let's go with that. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick said the first they'd heard of any of this was the day after the game.
Do you believe that?
Your answer will go a long way towards establishing your
"common sense and intelligence".

I was prepared to let this go and take your non answer as an answer, but I think I'd like a response.


Until proven otherwise, they spoke the truth.

You know about anything that's been proven that the rest of the world doesn't?

And don't say something like, "Bill Belichick, Mr. Know Every Detail, knows when the guy three floors down at the other end of the building takes a piss.  Of course he knows about the psi in each and every ball at all times."  You've already said something akin to that, and I have to tell you, if you resort to such dopey and asinine "logic" again, any discussion about this is over.  I will not engage in a back and forth where we end up talking about the assumptions you divine in your head because you think you have some magic window into other people's heads.  I can't tell you how stupid that reasoning is in my opinion.  You really think BB give a crap about setting the psi in the balls, and putting them "a tick" below regulation?  BB?  With everything else on his mind?  Seriously? 

It won't surprise me that the next thing you are going to say is that if Brady is healthy and still playing at the same (or close to the same) level when he's 40, then despite zero evidence, that you know for a "fact", that he must doing HGH or some other illegal substance that helps him heal/recover.  Then you'll say, "There he goes, cheating again."  Facts or evidence won't be part of your thought process.  You'll just say it.  This is not a far out analogy by me.  You've already said things exactly similar to this already.  Its what you do.  "Leaps of logic" I call them. 

George1963 wrote:
Then I find out they're still cheating. Against the team I root for.


You found out no such thing. 

I can't wait for the day that is hopefully coming soon when you are going to have to eat those words.

George1963 wrote:
Only people inside 495 realize how insignificant rules are.

Bullshit.

I wonder, do you also join in that Sports Illustrated piece where the author implied that the reason the big outdoor TV screen outside CBS Scene next to Gillette Stadium was visible from the Patriots sideline, but not from the visitor's sideline was constructed that way so that the Patriots could see replays on the big screen, but the visitors cannot, so that the Patriots would be able to see TV replays and know quickly whether to challenge a ref's ruling or not, while the visitors had no such advantage?

I shit you not.  This gibberish was actually contained in an article by a "Senior Writer" at Sports Illustrated!  Unbelievable.  But true.

Even for you, I'll bet this continual conjuring up of such outlandish garbage gets to be too much.  Or, maybe not.  Maybe you buy into it.  Hey, lets take depositions of the architects to see if it is true they designed it that way.  Or, should we just say, "Of course they designed it that way with that in mind.  Belichick thinks of everything, so he probably thought of that too."

How do you think such insanity comes across to a Pats fan on top of all the other insanity that gets thrown our way? 

Me?  I just shake my head and say, "What the fuck is wrong with these people?"  Sports Illustrated for godsakes!!!  SICK is what it is.

"A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots strapped on." 


And George is the one flying the plane.

George1963 wrote:

Until proven otherwise, they spoke the truth.


Hold on to that.



And you hold on to this "fact":


Then I find out they're still cheating. Against the team I root for.

George1963 wrote:


I don't think you understand what facts or evidence are. You're going totally on emotion. I'm partially there. I admit I am. You don't even see that you are.

Not really.  Its just that slanderous, false, and most importantly, unproven accusations born out of bad faith and sour grapes that are then blindly accepted as facts bother me is all.

Ya, I'll get emotional about that. 

George1963 wrote:



How sure are you that Aaron Hernandez killed Odin Lloyd?

Before answering, should I bother to look at all the available evidence, or is that just a silly exercise?

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:



How sure are you that Aaron Hernandez killed Odin Lloyd?

Before answering, should I bother to look at all the available evidence, or is that just a silly exercise?

George1963 wrote:

Just your opinion. Based on what you've read in the newspaper and online, common sense, and intelligence.


The circumstantial case against Hernandez looks strong....    

....which is vastly different from the circumstantial case that lead you to the conclusion that the Patriots "cheated" against the Colts.

In the murder case multiple media outlets reported on evidence found (visual evidence, physical evidence, testimonial evidence) that in the eyes of the hypothetical "reasonable man", strongly linked the suspect to the crime.  The circumstantial evidence was not just one thing, but multiple things.  When I add all of those things together they present a circumstantial case that imo has strength enough to hold up to challenge.

Different story with the circumstantial "evidence" that led many to jump the gun and conclude that the Patriots "cheated" in the AFCCG.  In that case  -  unlike the Hernandez case  -  the circumstantial "evidence" consisted first of a single leak by a "source" to a reporter (Chris Mortensen).  Later, as the next leak came out, it was evident that it was contradictory to the first leak.  And further leaks only added further contradiction (psi's were not recorded pre game).  In deflategate, unlike the murder case, the circumstantial case was very weak.  The "reasonable man" would conclude Hernandez did it.  However, in the case of the balls "a tick" under spec, what has resulted consists of nothing but hearsay upon hearsay, that is self-contradictory, and raises more questions than answers.  The reasonable man would not rush to judgment.  The reasonable man would not shoot first and ask questions later.  The reasonable man would wait before going off half cocked, claiming the moral high ground, and acting as judge, jury and executioner against a noble champion who did nothing wrong except defeat their opponents on the field of play and within the rules, all to the great dismay of those desperately seeking and hoping to see them fall from their lofty perch.


Just by way of comparison, and to show how unfairly out of proportion anything involving the Patriots is as compared to other teams, the incredible amount of attention that this so-called "scandal" received, the relentless, insane schaudenfreude that BB and TB have been met with, before anything even remotely close to definitive (or even circumstantial) regarding whether or not those footballs were intentionally tampered with by someone in the Patriots employ AFTER the refs approved them pre-game has been determined, has been far, far greater than what a team that had an organized program for injuring opposing players was greeted with. 

Now that my friend is some seriously misplaced outrage.

Bottom line, there are STRONG circumstantial cases where the "reasonable man" could reach a rational conclusion even in the absence of direct evidence or a confession.

And there are also WEAK (boarding on non-existent) circumstantial cases, also lacking direct evidence or a confession, where the "reasonable man" would have no choice but to conclude that the allegations being advanced utterly fail.

Here, I actually had a conversation with the hypothetical "reasonable man".  He compared the two cases, Hernandez and deflategate, and I asked him, "Reasonable man, please be the judge and tell me which circumstantial case belongs in the "EXCEEDINGLY STRONG" category, and which one belongs in the "PATHETICALLY WEAK" category?"  He looked at me and said, "Pfffft.  Too easy.  That's child's play."