"Well known around the league"

George1963 wrote:
10 out of 46 is all it takes.
For what?  What are we talking about?  Denying him on the first ballot, or denying him the Hall altogether?  You never made clear which one we are talking about.

The two I quoted (And I could have quoted more)
Both NY writers
Borges
The guy from Oakland
Indy
Cle

Buffalo
Carolina
That's my opinion.  Ok, that's your opinion.  We'll revisit it someday.  I have a feeling that I'll be the one far more willing to bring it up than you will.  That's my opinion.


You got any quotes from these guys?  Never mind, because they all spoke right after the Wells Report* had just came out.  Things are much different today.    
You think the two NY writers will vote against Brady?   Wrong.  Gary Myers from the Daily News has called deflategate the "silliest" controversy in history.  I've read all his articles, and I know pretty much what he thinks.  No way he's holding this joke of a "scandal" against Brady in any way, shape or form. 

The other quotes cited that were pulled from the NY Post article were from May 9.  A lot of water has passed under the bridge since that time.  Including the fact that the Wells Report* and Attorney Wells' personal so-called "conclusions" have been shown to be worthless toilet paper, and the NFL and Goodell have been shown to be blatant liars.  Things have changed since May. 

In addition, Judge Berman (the FIRST actual impartial person to look at this record) totally poo pooed Goodell's use of the word "scheme" in his "appeal" decision.  There is no doubt that the judge sees right through the hatchet job that going on here.  So I'm pretty sure with the final legal outcome not determined yet that none of the Hall voters' views are cast in stone at this point. 

 
You talk about what you call my "blind homerism".  Pffft.  I could just as easily talk at length about your Blind Hatred and Blind Bias. 
In fact, your blind hatred and bias are much higher up on the hatred and bias scales than my homerism is on the homerism scale.  Much higher. 

At least I enjoy myself and have some fun celebrating my team's accomplishments.  Call it whatever you want, I couldn't care less.  At least its from a positive perspective.  And satisfying.   Your whole approach, on the other hand, is to get yourself all worked up about whatever is negative, even the very miniscule and unimportant.  All to take attention away from the actual game played on the field simply because you don't like the results, and like a little kid cannot bring yourself to give credit where credit is due.  Can't beat 'em on the field, so might as well slander them.  Wow, how special.  It must really suck to have that negative thinking dominate your mind day after day after day.  So depressing.   I sure as hell couldn't do it.



You provided me with a definition.  One that applies more to you than me I think. 
But allow me to return the favor.  I think enough of you that I can give you a definition too.  One that is very apropos to you. 


bi·as
ˈbīəs/
noun
noun: bias; plural noun: biases
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.


One little four letter word.  That's really all it takes to describe your entire outlook. 

George1963 wrote:

10 out of 46 vote no he doesn't go in.


If only you could provide actual quotes from at least 10 that they have made up their mind NOW as to how they are going to vote on his first ballot.

If only.....


pho·ny
ˈfōnē/
informal
adjective
adjective: phoney; adjective: phony; comparative adjective: phonier; superlative adjective: phoniest
1.
not genuine; fraudulent.

"I thought your accent was a bit phony"

synonyms:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.];

George1963 wrote:In addition, Judge Berman (the FIRST actual impartial person to look at this record)


I'll expect you'll change your opinion in the near future.


Really?  The judge mercilessly hammered the NFL's lawyer for the second week in a row. 

It was so one-sided it was actually worse than 45-7. 

Instead of quoting the judge's actual questions and comments, I'll translate:

Judge Berman to NFL's lawyer:   "Your client's case stinks to high heaven."

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:In addition, Judge Berman (the FIRST actual impartial person to look at this record)


I'll expect you'll change your opinion in the near future.


Really?  The judge mercilessly hammered the NFL's lawyer for the second week in a row. 

It was so one-sided it was actually worse than 45-7. 

Instead of quoting the judge's actual questions and comments, I'll translate:

Judge Berman to NFL's lawyer:   "Your client's case stinks to high heaven."

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:In addition, Judge Berman (the FIRST actual impartial person to look at this record)


I'll expect you'll change your opinion in the near future.


Really?  The judge mercilessly hammered the NFL's lawyer for the second week in a row. 

It was so one-sided it was actually worse than 45-7. 

Instead of quoting the judge's actual questions and comments, I'll translate:

Judge Berman to NFL's lawyer:   "Your client's case stinks to high heaven."

I'll translate further:

Judge Berman to NFL's lawyer:   "Your client's case stinks to high heaven but ON THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF ME it's rock solid but I'm doing all I can to force you to drop any kind of admission of guilt or aknowledgment of the Wells report from a settlement because I'd rather have you settle and Brady, being the baby he is, will never admit he's anything less than perfect. I don't need to ask any questions about article 46, law of shop, the CBA, the commissioners powers or anything about WHAT THE CASE IN FRONT OF ME IS ABOUT because that's all pretty clear, I'd just rather have this settled because I don't like having my decisions appealed. And I know it will be. Because people in the wrong with money beat shit to death in the courts."

Admin wrote:

Because people in the wrong with money beat shit to death in the courts."

I just gotta tell you..... I love the way you phrase things.


Ya, real well thought-out brilliance on display there.
Incredible analysis. 
I'm just in awe.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:10 out of 46 vote no he doesn't go in.


If only you could provide actual quotes from at least 10 that they have made up their mind NOW as to how they are going to vote on his first ballot.

If only.....


If I could you'd dispute it, question their character, point out that they might not even be around when Brady came up, or change the subject.

Most probably change the subject.

Translation:  "Gup, you'd most probably change the subject.  You know, like I just did right here."

Further translation:  "I really aint got 10.   I just kinda say things sometimes.  You should know by now how I roll." 

guppy wrote:

Admin wrote:

Because people in the wrong with money beat shit to death in the courts."

I just gotta tell you..... I love the way you phrase things.


Ya, real well thought-out brilliance on display there.
Incredible analysis. 
I'm just in awe.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Because people in the wrong with money beat shit to death in the courts."

Admin wrote:

I wasn't talkin to you, so STFU NE FLAMER!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:
If you can't live by the standard you set for everyone else keep your fucking mouth shut.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:


Give me the 36 who've said he goes in on the first ballot.You seem pretty sure he will, so prove it.

Easy.  Two points: 1) Lawrence Taylor, despite arrests, drug abuse, a dead beat dad rap, and admitting having teammates submit their urine samples as his in order to fool league drug testers, just to name a few of his transgressions, got in on his first ballot;  and 2)  In stark contrast to LT, Tom Brady has been a model player, and a person of impeccable character for the entirety of his 15 year career.  Additionally, he did not ever, at any time, break any league rule, nor did he direct anyone else to do so -- a fact which is more becoming more clear every day as more and more people realize that Ted Wells's conclusions are illogical and incorrect.  People see that there is zero evidence that TB ever expressed a preference for balls below 12.5 psi, there is zero evidence that anyone else ever thought he ever had a such a preference for balls below 12.5, and there is zero evidence that he ever told any staff person to actually get balls below 12.5 for him.  Quite the opposite actually.  Therefore, it is very clear that not only will he get the necessary 80% vote of the HOF selectors on his first ballot, he will do far, far better.  He will receive 100%.  All 46.

George1963 wrote:

Sarcasm isn't analysis at all. It's what halfwits use when they don't have a response.
Lowest form of wit, right?


Sarcasm is often viewed as a low form of wit, but [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] published in Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes suggests that it might make you more creative.
Little research has been done on the effects of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which is why researchers from a host of top American universities, including Harvard and Columbia, experimented on how sarcastic comments affect creativity. The experiments involved more than 300 men and women whose creativity was tested by completing tasks after saying or receiving sarcastic comments. Another control group of participants was also asked to complete the tasks, although they were told sincere comments. The findings revealed that those who gave and received sarcastic comments were three times more creative than the control group because the sarcasm forced their brains to think abstractly, boosting creativity.
“We found that sarcasm may stimulate creativity, the generation of ideas, insights, or problem solutions that are novel and useful,” Dr. Li Huang, an author of the study and assistant professor of organizational behavior at Insead, a graduate business school, told [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. “As Oscar Wilde believed, sarcasm may represent a lower form of wit, but we found that it certainly catalyzes a higher form of thought.”


Well, duh.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:


Give me the 36 who've said he goes in on the first ballot.You seem pretty sure he will, so prove it.

Easy.   He will receive 100%.  All 46.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

Sarcasm isn't analysis at all. It's what halfwits use when they don't have a response.
Lowest form of wit, right?


Sarcasm is often viewed as a low form of wit, but [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] published in Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes suggests that it might make you more creative.
Little research has been done on the effects of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which is why researchers from a host of top American universities, including Harvard and Columbia, experimented on how sarcastic comments affect creativity. The experiments involved more than 300 men and women whose creativity was tested by completing tasks after saying or receiving sarcastic comments. Another control group of participants was also asked to complete the tasks, although they were told sincere comments. The findings revealed that those who gave and received sarcastic comments were three times more creative than the control group because the sarcasm forced their brains to think abstractly, boosting creativity.
“We found that sarcasm may stimulate creativity, the generation of ideas, insights, or problem solutions that are novel and useful,” Dr. Li Huang, an author of the study and assistant professor of organizational behavior at Insead, a graduate business school, told [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. “As Oscar Wilde believed, sarcasm may represent a lower form of wit, but we found that it certainly catalyzes a higher form of thought.”


Well, duh.

George1963 wrote:"Judicial review of a labor-arbitration decision pursuant to such an agreement is very limited. Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement.... It is only when the arbitrator strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively 'dispenses his own brand of industrial justice' that his decision may be unenforceable. When an arbitrator resolves disputes regarding the application of a contract, and no dishonesty is alleged, the arbitrator's 'improvident, even silly, factfinding' does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the award."

Major League Baseball Players Association v. Garvey, 121 S.Ct. 1724 (Sup. Ct., 2001)

Judicial review is "very limited".  Not "it can never happen". 

What don't you get about that?

I tried explaining it to you.  You still have to have "fundamental fairness" in the process.  But you didn't want to listen.