DeflateGate and Tom Bradys punishment

[cricket]

Ok Yoda, I actually forget what evidence you said existed that would say Brady orchestrated a scheme to lower the PSI in footballs under the legal limit after they were checked by the refs.

[Yoda]

Well, if you wanna resurrect the argument, that's probably going to involve you skimming the thread a little.

[cricket]

But see I never saw evidence against Brady at all. You even argued that the Pats may have done this to prevent fumbles, but that wouldn't be Brady's scheme. As I said in the other thread, the only thing we absolutely know that relates to Brady and PSI, is that he demanded the refs to make sure the balls were legal. You keep saying that evidence is different than proof, but having evidence is also different than something being possible, which is where I think your thought process is.

[Yoda]

I have no problem with you resurrecting this, but assigning me the homework of reconstructing it for you is a bit much.

[cricket]

Well I mean your evidence is one guy calling himself the deflator in May. You can call that evidence of something if you choose, but it's not evidence against Brady.

[Powdered Water]

Good grief. Seriously?

[Camo]

Good grief. Seriously?

:laugh:. Yeah this thread will never die.

[cricket]

Never!

[Yoda]

Yeah, that wasn't the only evidence or the only argument, though the fact that you don't recall any others is probably significant in itself.

[cricket]

Except that text is not evidence against Tom Brady, and if your other so called evidence isn't against him either, that'd be another reason why I can't remember it.

[Yoda]

I have a different guess about why you don't remember them, but there's really no need to speculate: if you wanna resurrect the argument, you can spend a little time skimming the thread.

[cricket]

"What is the evidence of a scheme or conspiracy that covers the Jan. 18 game? I'm having trouble finding it."

-Judge Berman

[Yoda]

Yeah, as I pointed out earlier, the judge was asking for "direct evidence." Funny how your initial retelling left that first word off. Also funny how apparently now people have to prove a conspiracy when the claim is usually that Brady was merely aware. The goalposts never seem to stop moving.

I've said this a few times, so this is the last time I'll bother: if you wanna have this argument again, you can spend a little time skimming the thread and replying to the relevant bits.

[cricket]

That's a direct quote, he says evidence, not direct evidence. And you're right, the goalposts do keep moving; the NFL has repeatedly changed the language in their accusations.

[cricket]

There are no relevant bits, no evidence that Brady directed someone to deflate footballs below the legal limit after being checked by the refs. Any evidence points to the contrary.

[Yoda]

At this point I can only assume there's some weird Boston tradition where the person who insists something the most is automatically declared correct.

[cricket]

Your thing seems to be about text messages, although the text from Jastremski in Nov. 2014 stating that the psi is supposed to be around 13 seems to be ignored by many. None of the texts say a single thing about deflating balls below the legal limit, much less after the ref checks them, and much less being directed by Tom Brady to do so. That doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist, then evidence against Brady doesn't exist.

[Yoda]

"Your thing seems to be about" sounds an awful lot like "no, I'm not going to actually bother to refamiliarize myself with the arguments you made last time."

[cricket]

Tell me what evidence there is that Tom Brady directed someone to deflate footballs below the legal limit after the refs checked them. You can't.

[Yoda]

Already did. I didn't get an answer then, and it's pretty clear I'm not going to get one now.

[cricket]

You keep saying things like that and I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you have anything, and I think you're using the word evidence so loosely that you're destroying its meaning.

[Yoda]

Nah, I'm using it correctly. The definition where you try to exclude anything which merely could have another explanation is the meaningless one.

[cricket]

But evidence should be evidence of something being done by Tom Brady, and we don't have that.

[Yoda]

We do have that. But when it was presented to you last time, you shrugged it off because it wasn't direct evidence and "could have" meant something else.

But look, if you genuinely want to talk about this more, you'll go back and finally address this stuff head on. That's totally cool with me. But if you're just here to restate your position as if the last discussion never happened, I'll take a hard pass.

[cricket]

I believe the circumstantial evidence you're referring to could be used to infer that the balls were deflated. The problem is that you you can't use it to infer that Brady, specifically, is guilty. Therefore there is no evidence against Brady, even if you believe that there is evidence that an infraction was committed. There is evidence to support Brady's claim of innocence, however. This is what the judge was focused on.

[Yoda]

Saying there's "no evidence" of Brady's wrongdoing is like saying there's "no evidence" of black holes, even though their existence is implied by all the things immediately around them. This is why it's correct to say there's no direct evidence, but obviously false to say there's none.

Last time we discussed this I laid all this out and put forward some extremely simple, straightforward questions of likelihood. They were never answered. So, again, if you wanna get into this, you should probably start there.

[cricket]

Like I've said, it appears you're using the word evidence way too loosely. You could say Brady playing for the Pats is evidence if you so desire, but it just doesn't work that way. Instead of me having to go through the entire thread and guess what you want me to find, and you talking in circles, give a sentence containing a piece of evidence towards Brady's guilt, and we can see what it really shows.

[Yoda]

Instead of me having to go through the entire thread
And it's more reasonable for me to do it? If you're going to ignore arguments, forget them, and then decide you want to resurrect them, you can at least look for them a little.

[cricket]

I remember my points at least, maybe you don't if you stopped following the case for a while. From what I remember, your evidence is the third party texts, which would be considered heresay, not evidence. That's if you want to get technical. If you don't, there's still nothing anywhere to infer that Brady directed someone to deflate balls under the legal limit after the refs checked them.

[Yoda]

Sure, let's get technical. The texts are not hearsay, because it's only hearsay if you're repeating what someone else said they heard, because the court has no way of questioning that outside source. In this case, we have something even better than questioning them about what they said: we have a written record.

It's also not hearsay if the statement in question goes against the interests of the person relaying it, or if the statement is about the speaker's mental condition at the time, both of which apply.

[cricket]

Sure, let's get technical. The texts are not hearsay, because it's only hearsay if you're repeating what someone else said they heard, because the court has no way of questioning that outside source. In this case, we have something even better than questioning them about what they said: we have a written record.

It's also not hearsay if the statement in question goes against the interests of the person relaying it, or if the statement is about the speaker's mental condition at the time, both of which apply.

What you say can be true, except it's not the defendant who's texts you are analyzing.

[Yoda]

Right. Those were destroyed by the accused.

What it is is firsthand testimony. Which means it isn't proof, but it is evidence.

[cricket]

What was destroyed? They got all of Brady's texts.

[Yoda]

You should probably link a source for that claim. Regardless, the relevant bit was this:

What it is is firsthand testimony. Which means it isn't proof, but it is evidence.
There's little point in discussing evidence until you've acknowledged what evidence is. Because if you don't do that, this ends up becoming an argumentative escape hatch and I end up wasting a bunch of my time. This is exactly what happened last time: I spent dozens of posts knocking down non-sequiturs and dodging rhetorical chaff ("You're just jealous!" "The NFL is incompetent!"), and when the distractions had run out there was just a plain stonewalling "that could mean something else, so it's not evidence" at the end.

[cricket]

You could say I was mistaken about the phone. The main point about that headline saying he destroyed the phone is misleading though. Ted Wells and the NFL never asked for his actual phone, they just wanted the communications. When Brady and his team offered up these communications, the NFL deemed that it would take too long to go through all of them. So the destroyed his phone headline is misleading because it was already predetermined that nobody wanted to see it. If that's known, and he trades in his Galaxy for an iPhone, it's irrelevant.

But back to the texts between McNally and Jastremski. Their texts are classic heresay. You would need one of them to say something to the effect of "Tom told me to deflate the balls below the legal limit after the refs checked them." In other words, have one of them state something as fact about the defendant. Even then, you would need to be granted a heresay exception. Those texts did not contain anything in the vicinity of that.

[cricket]

Here are just 3 opinions from people who are intelligent, objective, and knowledgable about the case-

John Dowd, attorney and special counsel who led the Pete Rose investigation-

http://youtu.be/0OWVGCS8aRM

Robert Blecker, former New York Special Assistant Attorney General, and current New York Law School professor-

http://youtu.be/wls6WT0DrFM

Robert Parry, investigative journalist best known for covering the Iran-Contra affair for the AP and Newsweek-

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/03/a-deflategate-slapdown-of-nfl-and-msm/

[Yoda]

You could say I was mistaken about the phone.
Serious question: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better? Because if not, it's a stretch to call these "mistakes."

The main point about that headline saying he destroyed the phone is misleading though. Ted Wells and the NFL never asked for his actual phone, they just wanted the communications. When Brady and his team offered up these communications, the NFL deemed that it would take too long to go through all of them.
Again: source? I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to, and if I'm right, this is another demonstrable misrepresentation.

But back to the texts between McNally and Jastremski. Their texts are classic heresay.
No they're not: I just gave you three separate (but individually sufficient) reasons they're not hearsay.

At this point there's no real argument for the "no evidence" stance. Every time evidence is presented you just give an example of really really strong evidence and say, because it's not that, it's not evidence at all. That's not how evidence works and not what the word means.

[cricket]

Serious question: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better? Because if not, it's a stretch to call these "mistakes."

But the point is that Brady Cooporated.

Again: source? I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to, and if I'm right, this is another demonstrable misrepresentation.

Isn't that common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case?

No they're not: I just gave you three separate (but individually sufficient) reasons they're not hearsay.

Person A talking to person B about person C is heresay.

At this point there's no real argument for the "no evidence" stance. Every time evidence is presented you just give an example of really really strong evidence and say, because it's not that, it's not evidence at all. That's not how evidence works and not what the word means.

Just because the NFL calls something evidence, that doesn't make it so. You can have their so called evidence if you wish, but what is it evidence of? It's certainly not evidence against Brady.

Look at the links. The NFL manipulated the public, and many fell for it. It's hard for me to believe that you actually think this way. Maybe you're just trying to debate for debate's sake?

[Yoda]

But the point is that Brady Cooporated.
I'll try again: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better?

Isn't that common knowledge to anyone who has followed the case?
Yesterday you seemed to think the NFL having all his texts was common knowledge. Indulge me.

Person A talking to person B about person C is heresay.
No, it isn't. It's hearsay if A relays what B said about C. It's not the presence of a third person that makes it hearsay, it's a source whose words cannot be directly verified or questioned.

Just because the NFL calls something evidence, that doesn't make it so.
Quite true. Which is why I haven't made any arguments that require anyone to find the NFL trustworthy or competent.

Look at the links. The NFL manipulated the public, and many fell for it. It's hard for me to believe that you actually think this way.
That's probably because you've somehow decided that belief in Brady or the team's guilt somehow implies implicit trust in (and support of) the league. It doesn't, and I've pointed out that it doesn't many, many times. I can only assume you keep suggesting otherwise because it's an easier position to defend.

Maybe you're just trying to debate for debate's sake?
Who was it who wanted to resurrect the argument?

[cricket]

I'll try again: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better?

Isn't the NFL having the info the same as being offered the info, when it comes to Brady's cooperation?


Yesterday you seemed to think the NFL having all his texts was common knowledge. Indulge me.

See above.


No, it isn't. It's hearsay if A relays what B said about C. It's not the presence of a third person that makes it hearsay, it's a source whose words cannot be directly verified or questioned.

Brady is the accused. If he's not involved in the communication, it's heresay.


Quite true. Which is why I haven't made any arguments that require anyone to find the NFL trustworthy or competent.

So why do you believe them?


That's probably because you've somehow decided that belief in Brady or the team's guilt somehow implies implicit trust in (and support of) the league. It doesn't, and I've pointed out that it doesn't many, many times. I can only assume you keep suggesting otherwise because it's an easier position to defend.

So have you looked at those links?


Who was it who wanted to resurrect the argument?

I was hoping that you'd finally get it.

[Yoda]

Isn't the NFL having the info the same as being offered the info, when it comes to Brady's cooperation?
Good grief, no. Seriously? You think if the NFL gets something on its own, that indicates Brady "cooperating" to the same degree as if he gave it to them? That makes no sense.

It also wasn't the question, which I'll repeat: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better?

See above.
Where? Please be specific. If it's in one of the videos, kindly tell me to which and roughly when.

Brady is the accused. If he's not involved in the communication, it's heresay.
This is simply false. Google "hearsay" and get back to me.

So why do you believe them?
About what, specifically? Please list a specific fact that my argument is relying on that involves blind faith in the NFL.

Are you noticing how often I have to ask for specifics? Is that something I should have to do if I'm talking to someone who actually has all the facts on their side?

So have you looked at those links?
Nope. I'm not going to watch a random infodump of people who agree with you without an explanation as to what argument they're supposed to address or refute. Especially when they appear, at first glance, to be based on the aforementioned assumption that all you need to do is establish that the NFL is incompetent and that'll somehow exonerate the team.

I was hoping that you'd finally get it.
Yeah, that's fine. But it becomes pretty silly when, right after demanding to have the argument again, you suggest it's the other guy who's "debating just to debate."

[cricket]

Good grief, no. Seriously? You think if the NFL gets something on its own, that indicates Brady "cooperating" to the same degree as if he gave it to them? That makes no sense.

But no, they did not get it on their own. They were offered it by Brady and his team.

It also wasn't the question, which I'll repeat: can you point to even one example of you misremembering something in a way that didn't make the Patriots look better?

I initially dismissed the question as idiotic. Can you point to an example of me misremembering something in a way that made either side look better or worse? Excluding of course the recent time, which is irrelevant since the point is the same. In fact, the question is irrelevant as to what we're doing here.


Where? Please be specific. If it's in one of the videos, kindly tell me to which and roughly when.

They're not long videos; you should watch them, especially if you want to be knowledgable about this case. They're objective people with impeccable credentials.


This is simply false. Google "hearsay" and get back to me.

If McNally texted Jastremski that "Brady blew out his knee today during practice", even that is heresay, although you could get a heresay exception due to the statement apparently being a fact that points to a truth. You don't have anything close to that with the actual texts.


About what, specifically? Please list a specific fact that my argument is relying on that involves blind faith in the NFL.

Are you noticing how often I have to ask for specifics? Is that something I should have to do if I'm talking to someone who actually has all the facts on their side?

That wasn't a specific question on my part, just general.


Nope. I'm not going to watch a random infodump of people who agree with you without an explanation as to what argument they're supposed to address or refute. Especially when they appear, at first glance, to be based on the aforementioned assumption that all you need to do is establish that the NFL is incompetent and that'll somehow exonerate the team.

They get into the phone/cooperation issue pretty well, as well as some other things. Dowd also states that there's no evidence against Brady.


Yeah, that's fine. But it becomes pretty silly when, right after demanding to have the argument again, you suggest it's the other guy who's "debating just to debate."

I'm just really stunned by your arguments.

[Yoda]

But no, they did not get it on their own. They were offered it by Brady and his team.
I was answering your question, dude. You asked (rhetorically, I guess?) if the NFL having something was the same thing as Brady cooperating by giving it to them. And the answer is: of course not. It's cooperating if you give them something, and not if they get it on their own. Now you're acting as if the premise of your own question is wrong, which is just bizarre.

I initially dismissed the question as idiotic. Can you point to an example of me misremembering something in a way that made either side look better or worse?
Sure. It happened multiple times during the Spygate discussion (you said the "original rule" didn't mention a roof and pointed me to an explanatory paragraph that said no such thing). Most recently, you said the NFL "admitted there was no evidence," even though the actual quote was just a judge asking for "direct evidence" and the NFL replying they had "considerable evidence." Somehow that morphed into "admitted they had no evidence," which isn't even close to an accurate representation of their position. You're free to think they're wrong, but not to pretend they admitted to something they didn't.

And see below for what I'm increasingly convinced is going to be another example...

They're not long videos; you should watch them, especially if you want to be knowledgable about this case. They're objective people with impeccable credentials.
They could be the reincarnation of Jim Thorpe for all I care: that doesn't mean they're addressing what I'm saying right now. If it's just clips of beating up on the NFL for having poor legal standing, for example, that's not under dispute.

You say Brady offered the communications and the NFL said it would take too long. I asked you to substantiate this. Is this specifically substantiated in one of the videos? If so, which?

If McNally texted Jastremski that "Brady blew out his knee today during practice", even that is heresay, although you could get a heresay exception due to the statement apparently being a fact that points to a truth. You don't have anything close to that with the actual texts.
No, that is not hearsay. Heck, it's not even spelled "heresay." I'd love to be more tactful about this, but you're simply wrong about what hearsay is. I again encourage you to Google it.

That wasn't a specific question on my part, just general.
Exactly: you want to turn this into a general referendum on the NFL, because that's an easier sell. But if you can't point to a specific thing I'm supposed to be trusting the NFL about to make my case, then all this stuff about the NFL being untrustworthy is just kicking up dust.

I'm just really stunned by your arguments.
I believe you. I believe that the fans of any team have echo chambers in bars and on forums where Everybody Knows things that are repeated without ever being questioned, and that stepping outside of it is probably pretty jarring.

How did you come to believe the NFL had Brady's texts, for example? Did some other Patriots fan say it, and you believed it without checking? Was it a mangled version of some other vaguely related fact?

[cricket]

I was answering your question, dude. You asked (rhetorically, I guess?) if the NFL having something was the same thing as Brady cooperating by giving it to them. And the answer is: of course not. It's cooperating if you give them something, and not if they get it on their own. Now you're acting as if the premise of your own question is wrong, which is just bizarre.

forget about the NFL getting it on their own. I'm telling you that Brady offered up all of his communications.

Sure. It happened multiple times during the Spygate discussion (you said the "original rule" didn't mention a roof and pointed me to an explanatory paragraph that said no such thing). Most recently, you said the NFL "admitted there was no evidence," even though the actual quote was just a judge asking for "direct evidence" and the NFL replying they had "considerable evidence." Somehow that morphed into "admitted they had no evidence," which isn't even close to an accurate representation of their position. You're free to think they're wrong, but not to pretend they admitted to something they didn't.

Spygate is another story; I was learning things as we were discussing the issue. What does any of this have to do with if Brady cheated?


They could be the reincarnation of Jim Thorpe for all I care: that doesn't mean they're addressing what I'm saying right now. If it's just clips of beating up on the NFL for having poor legal standing, for example, that's not under dispute.

You say Brady offered the communications and the NFL said it would take too long. I asked you to substantiate this. Is this specifically substantiated in one of the videos? If so, which?

I didn't just post random links for no reason. They are all relevant to issues you have concern with. You could have had them watched by now and avoided some of this back and forth.

No, that is not hearsay. Heck, it's not even spelled "heresay." I'd love to be more tactful about this, but you're simply wrong about what hearsay is. I again encourage you to Google it.

I did, for kicks, and I found what I thought I would. I'm assuming you realize we're analyzing the texts in regards to Brady's guilt or innocence.


Exactly: you want to turn this into a general referendum on the NFL, because that's an easier sell. But if you can't point to a specific thing I'm supposed to be trusting the NFL about to make my case, then all this stuff about the NFL being untrustworthy is just kicking up dust.

I'm trying not to needlessly elongate this whole discussion. A better question would be what you believe from them; it's much shorter.


I believe you. I believe that the fans of any team have echo chambers in bars and on forums where Everybody Knows things that are repeated without ever being questioned, and that stepping outside of it is probably pretty jarring.

I thought it sounded bad when I first heard the news. It was only after learning more information that I thought Brady was innocent. It doesn't matter which team or player, my feelings would be the same. I don't go to bars and this is the only forum I'm a member of.

How did you come to believe the NFL had Brady's texts, for example? Did some other Patriots fan say it, and you believed it without checking? Was it a mangled version of some other vaguely related fact?

I mixed up texts with emails, not that it matters.

[Yoda]

forget about the NFL getting it on their own.
Why ask about it, then?

I'm telling you that Brady offered up all of his communications.
And again, I ask you to substantiate this. I think I know what you're referring to, and if I'm right, this is another misrepresentation. But I can't know until you actually provide a source.

Spygate is another story; I was learning things as we were discussing the issue. What does any of this have to do with if Brady cheated?
You've repeatedly tried to turn the discussion away from that question towards issues of bias and motivation in others (the league, other fans, etc), so it's interesting that this is apparently unimportant when your own is being discussed. But now, I can just quote this back to you the next time it happens.

I didn't just post random links for no reason. They are all relevant to issues you have concern with.
Do they in any way demonstrate Brady turning over "all of his communications"? Because when I asked you about that you just said "See above."

You could have had them watched by now and avoided some of this back and forth.
And you could have avoided it even easier by telling me where the relevant part is, given that you've already seen them.

Normally I'd just watch them, but in past discussions you've thrown out all sorts of random stuff that turned out to have no bearing on the question at hand. So you can understand my hesitancy to sink 20 minutes into something when you (for some reason) won't even tell me what it's supposed to address.

I did, for kicks, and I found what I thought I would.
Really? Post the link then, please. Because I've looked at multiple definitions that say exactly what I'm saying.

I'm assuming you realize we're analyzing the texts in regards to Brady's guilt or innocence.
No idea what this means, but I'll bet it ends up getting used to make an awkward argument about why the standard definition of hearsay doesn't apply.

I'm trying not to needlessly elongate this whole discussion. A better question would be what you believe from them; it's much shorter.
As far as I can tell, I believe zero things that are said only by the NFL. The arguments I'm making are based on facts reported by independent sources. IE: nobody disputes Brady destroyed his phone, nobody disputes what the texts say, etc. I can't think of any argument I've made or am making now which is disputed or for which the only source is the NFL.

I mixed up texts with emails, not that it matters.
It matters because you've tried to dismiss multiple people's criticism of the Patriots by telling them they must not know much about the case.

[cricket]

Why ask about it, then?

Because you brought up the ridiculous notion of destroying the phone.


And again, I ask you to substantiate this. I think I know what you're referring to, and if I'm right, this is another misrepresentation. But I can't know until you actually provide a source.

I provided links for many of your issues;


You've repeatedly tried to turn the discussion away from that question towards issues of bias and motivation in others (the league, other fans, etc), so it's interesting that this is apparently unimportant when your own is being discussed. But now, I can just quote this back to you the next time it happens.


Do they in any way demonstrate Brady turning over "all of his communications"? Because when I asked you about that you just said "See above."

Yes


And you could have avoided it even easier by telling me where the relevant part is, given that you've already seen them.

Normally I'd just watch them, but in past discussions you've thrown out all sorts of random stuff that turned out to have no bearing on the question at hand. So you can understand my hesitancy to sink 20 minutes into something when you (for some reason) won't even tell me what it's supposed to address.

They're all relevant; if you watch them, this entire discussion can be put to rest.


Really? Post the link then, please. Because I've looked at multiple definitions that say exactly what I'm saying.

A court considers hearsay anything that is stated out of court, written or oral. You can get hearsay exceptions, but you wouldn't in this case. I'm not posting any other links because that's a waste of time.


No idea what this means, but I'll bet it ends up getting used to make an awkward argument about why the standard definition of hearsay doesn't apply.

It means I don't understand what you're missing.


As far as I can tell, I believe zero things that are said only by the NFL. The arguments I'm making are based on facts reported by independent sources. IE: nobody disputes Brady destroyed his phone, nobody disputes what the texts say, etc. I can't think of any argument I've made or am making now which is disputed or for which the only source is the NFL.

It's as if you know nothing about the case.


It matters because you've tried to dismiss multiple people's criticism of the Patriots by telling them they must not know much about the case.

When I make a mistake, I admit it right away.

[Yoda]

Because you brought up the ridiculous notion of destroying the phone.
Huh? You asked me if providing something was the same thing as them having it already, then when I pointed out the answer was obviously "no," you told me to forget the question. This makes zero sense.

I provided links for many of your issues;
This is a non-answer.

Yes
Where?

They're all relevant; if you watch them, this entire discussion can be put to rest.
I have no doubt they're relevant to the things you want to talk about, but that doesn't make them relevant to my question.

A court considers hearsay anything that is stated out of court, written or oral. You can get hearsay exceptions, but you wouldn't in this case. I'm not posting any other links because that's a waste of time.
"Other links" implies that you've posted any.

Hearsay is not "anything that is stated out of court" (you conveniently left off the other half of the definition), and in this case the texts are not "out of court," anyway, because they're part of the record. They'd be out of court if all we had were someone who'd read them describing them to us.

It's as if you know nothing about the case.
Statements like this are meaningless when you somehow never get around to the specifics.

There's no version of this argument where you just get to make assertions and don't have to back them up. Making specific arguments and providing sources are not annoying details or nuisances. If you're not willing to do those things, then you don't really want to argue.

When I make a mistake, I admit it right away.
What you don't appear to do is factor it into future communications.

[Yoda]

One of the reasons I'm focusing on some of these issues, by the way, is because I have realistic goals.

Everybody knows I'm not going to convince you the Patriots are guilty (like, ever). And I'm not particularly bothered by you believing they've been railroaded by the NFL, the Media, yadda yadda yadda. What does bother me a little is when you externalize this by implying everyone else is either ignorant or gullible. That's insulting.

So my modest goal for this is to inject a little humility into all these bold pronouncements. And one would hope that after a few examples of exposed misrepresentations or evasions, that maybe the next pronouncement would read more like circumspect opinion than grandiose overcompensation. That's what I'm hoping for.

[cricket]

You're talking in circles, you are ignorant about the case, and you were gullible believing everything the NFL spoonfed you. You refuse to check the links I provided, but you know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

[Yoda]

See above re: grandiose overcompensation.

[cricket]

You won't look at the links so you're not trying.

[Yoda]

If you were at all serious about this you'd have no reason not to provide the specifics I'm asking for.

[cricket]

Check the links, this is childish.

[Yoda]

"Here's 20 minutes of video. Somewhere in here is the answer to your question. No, I won't tell you where. No, I won't tell you why I won't tell you where. Stop being childish!"

[cricket]

Everything within the links are relevant, and you're wrong about the case on numerous levels, so that's why they're there. All the time you spent arguing about why you should look and you could have watched them already.

[Yoda]

In other words, the links aren't answers to my question, just people who agree with you talking generally about the case, which is exactly what I suspected they were. You're trying to answer specific questions with general responses, because the more we get into specifics the more the argument breaks down.

You already have a history of throwing out random things that turn out not to be relevant, or not to say what you said they were, so I have a perfectly good reason for wanting you to be specific this time. What's your reason for refusing? Let's hear it.

[seanc]

I watched the links yesterday. The first one with Dodd is useless. Just him saying the NFL is wrong, no evidence whatsoever. The second one is pretty good but all about how horribly the NFL botched the case. Since Yoda isn't arguing for the NFL's handling of the case I doubt he will find anything he hasn't heard. In other words the two videos aren't going to change your guy's argument in the slightest.

[cricket]

So, like the NFL, you'd rather make a guess than learn something. I see.

[Yoda]

...

You already have a history of throwing out random things that turn out not to be relevant, or not to say what you said they were, so I have a perfectly good reason for wanting you to be specific this time. What's your reason for refusing? Let's hear it.

[cricket]

I watched the links yesterday. The first one with Dodd is useless. Just him saying the NFL is wrong, no evidence whatsoever. The second one is pretty good but all about how horribly the NFL botched the case. Since Yoda isn't arguing for the NFL's handling of the case I doubt he will find anything he hasn't heard. In other words the two videos aren't going to change your guy's argument in the slightest.

How is Dowd useless when he gets into the destroying the phone nonsense? He also states that there's no evidence against Brady, and he knows what he's talking about.

[seanc]

So, like the NFL, you'd rather make a guess than learn something. I see.


There is no smoking gun, and I have never said there is. What was preposterous to me was NE reaction to the whole thing from the start. They never act like innocent men. They act like kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar and deflect, deflect, deflect. I know no one is ever going to convince you otherwise but until something changes Belichick will always be the guy who walks a very fine line when it comes to the rules. There is a razor thin line between gamesmanship and cheating in sports and I think the Patriots enjoy pushing those boundaries. I don't think it taints their championships, I don't think anyone needs to be suspended at this point. I do firmly believe that is the place where they like to live.

[cricket]

No smoking gun? There's no evidence at all, and in fact, there's evidence that points to their innocence. And what do you mean their reaction?

[seanc]

How is Dowd useless when he gets into the destroying the phone nonsense? He also states that there's no evidence against Brady, and he knows what he's talking about.

If you believe Brady you are going to say the destroyed phone means nothing. If you think Brady is hiding something you are going to say the opposite. No one is ever going to be able to prove the other person wrong because the phone is gone. Pretty simple. I think you have gotten past it by this point but a lot of the Brady defenders were arguing that even if the balls were deflated on purpose there is no evidence that is because Brady wanted them that way. I find that notion laughable as the QB is the one who would care about such a thing.

[cricket]

Sean, it was already established that nobody wanted to see Brady's phone before he got a new one. They also offered up all of their communications. Those are facts.

[seanc]

No smoking gun? There's no evidence at all, and in fact, there's evidence that points to their innocence. And what do you mean their reaction?

The press conferences when everything first started happening.

[cricket]

It's also a fact that the weather will lower the psi in footballs.

[seanc]

Sean, it was already established that nobody wanted to see Brady's phone before he got a new one. They also offered up all of their communications. Those are facts.

They said that because they had the other side of the communications and felt that was enough to suspend him, right?

[cricket]

The press conferences when everything first started happening.

Oh I see, when the only information they had was the false information the NFL gave them.

You guys are much smarter than this.

[cricket]

They said that because they had the other side of the communications and felt that was enough to suspend him, right?

They offered up all of Brady's phone records. Nobody ever wanted to see his actual phone.

[seanc]

They offered up all of Brady's phone records. Nobody ever wanted to see his actual phone.

Because they felt they had enough of the communication to suspend him, right?

[cricket]

It's also a fact that the only psi levels discovered in any text messages were of a legal level, or an above legal level. All of the sheep like to ignore this.

[cricket]

Because they felt they had enough of the communication to suspend him, right?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

[seanc]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

You keep saying the NFL received all the communications they requested. This was true at the time of them suspending Brady. So they felt like they had enough. The court disagrees. Is that the correct timeline?

[cricket]

They didn't receive the communications, but they were offered them. The whole point of this is to dispute the NFL headline that he destroyed his phone, which was to imply that Brady didn't cooperate. This was deceptive because nobody asked Brady for his physical phone, and he got a new phone once that was already established.

[seanc]

Honestly Cricket, this has sent me back down a google rabbit hole of speculation that I had no interest in revisiting. This thing has been argued by everyone like a murder case that was going to be the difference between Brady being kicked out of the league for the rest of his life. Instead of the blip on the screen that it actually is.

Maybe if this was Jim Kelly I would be arguing your point but I can't help but thinking if it was Kelly you would be arguing mine. In sports accusations, usually where there is smoke there is fire. I really don't care what level PSI Brady likes the footballs at. My guess is that he has a level he likes them at and that is why all this has come about.

When the flippin Patriots win the Super Bowl in a couple weeks I will congratulate you just like I would have done if none of this had happened.

[cricket]

But the thing about the psi levels that we know for certain are as follows-

Tom Brady was sending a copy of the rule book to the refs before the games with the psi rules highlighted, in order to ensure that the balls were within the legal parameters.

John Jastremski sent a text 11/14 stating the balls are supposed to be around 13 psi.

There is zero stating below legal psi numbers.

We know the NFL lied multiple times.

We have direct evidence that Tom Brady is innocent.

We know for a fact that inclement weather lowers psi.

We know the whole destroyed the phone thing is nonsense.

These are all indisputable facts, so what's this all about?

[seanc]

Tom Brady was sending a copy of the rule book to the refs before the games with the psi rules highlighted, in order to ensure that the balls were within the legal parameters.

These are the types of things that set off all kinds of alarms in my head. As a sports fan and an ontelligent guy you should know why. That's what this is all about.

[cricket]

These are the types of things that set off all kinds of alarms in my head. As a sports fan and an ontelligent guy you should know why. That's what this is all about.

It's because the footballs were inflated by the refs to over 16 psi in a previous game. Alarm bells gone.

[seanc]

It's because the footballs were inflated by the refs to over 16 psi in a previous game. Alarm bells gone.

But you see Brady doesn't care about PSI. He is oblivious to all this craziness that is swirling around him. Just an innocent bystander trying to play the game and nothing else. Poor Tom.

I really want to be done with this Cricket, I am sorry I let myself get sucked back in. I know he is your QB, and he is one of the greats. Enjoy it.

[cricket]

But you see Brady doesn't care about PSI. He is oblivious to all this craziness that is swirling around him. Just an innocent bystander trying to play the game and nothing else. Poor Tom.

I really want to be done with this Cricket, I am sorry I let myself get sucked back in. I know he is your QB, and he is one of the greats. Enjoy it.

I would defend anybody the same way. It's only because of where I live that I know a good amount about the case.

And by the way, he testified that he knew nothing about psi until the game in which they were severely overinflated.

[seanc]

And by the way, he testified that he knew nothing about psi until the game in which they were severely overinflated.

I know I shouldn't keep answering when I say I'm done but you realize this is the kind of stuff that screams disingenuous and is why so many of us still have doubts, right?

[cricket]

I know I shouldn't keep answering when I say I'm done but you realize this is the kind of stuff that screams disingenuous and is why so many of us still have doubts, right?

But it all adds up with the texts and the timeline.

[seanc]

But it all adds up with the texts and the timeline.

However it doesn't add up when you consider he is the first QB I can ever remember being accused of this and he is acting like he knows nothing about PSI while simultaneously sending memos to officials about PSI. More than a bit of a stretch for you to think that everything is on the up and up and the NFL was simply on a witch hunt to crucify their poster boy and gravy train.

[cricket]

But it wasn't simultaneously; one led to the other, and the timeline fits perfectly.

[cricket]

And don't forget, some quarterbacks came out saying they'd be able to tell the difference if the psi went down this little amount, an amount that's equal to less than the weight of a dollar bill. What these idiots didn't realize when they said that, was that they did play with under inflated footballs, unless they never played a game in bad weather. QBs have been talking for years about the grip of a ball and how to break them in. I've never heard psi talk before, and it's because it doesn't matter.

[seanc]

But it wasn't simultaneously; one led to the other, and the timeline fits perfectly.

I'm using simultaneously in the relative sense. Unless you meant him sending a memo about PSI led to him pretending he is just figuring out all about PSI.

[seanc]

And don't forget, some quarterbacks came out saying they'd be able to tell the difference if the psi went down this little amount, an amount that's equal to less than the weight of a dollar bill. What these idiots didn't realize when they said that, was that they did play with under inflated footballs, unless they never played a game in bad weather. QBs have been talking for years about the grip of a ball and how to break them in. I've never heard psi talk before, and it's because it doesn't matter.

Cricket, your doing the exact same thing as Brady. 2 less PSI doesn't matter, idiots. 2 plus PSI, well now we better start setting some officials straight with well timed memos. Surely you see this reasoning is shady.

[cricket]

Like I said, we've heard things for years about teams breaking balls in for QB's so they could get the right feel. PSI has never come up; nobody even realized the weather had an effect until Billy Belichick brought it up. Do you think psi is an issue in other sports? The NFL never cared either, and they still don't. It's a non issue.

[cricket]

Cricket, your doing the exact same thing as Brady. 2 less PSI doesn't matter, idiots. 2 plus PSI, well now we better start setting some officials straight with well timed memos. Surely you see this reasoning is shady.

I'm not doing anything the same as Brady. I think you're missing the point.

[seanc]

Like I said, we've heard things for years about teams breaking balls in for QB's so they could get the right feel. PSI has never come up; nobody even realized the weather had an effect until Billy Belichick brought it up. Do you think psi is an issue in other sports? The NFL never cared either, and they still don't. It's a non issue.

I think the balls in every sport matter and there has been much talk about it in baseball and basketball as well.

Why do you think it is okay for Brady to say PSI means nothing and then say the reason he sent that memo is because he noticed the difference in PSI the previous game?

[cricket]

Tom Brady does not squeeze the ball, and a ball with less psi gets to its target later. So why would Brady want the psi low? It doesn't even make sense.

[cricket]

I think the balls in every sport matter and there has been much talk about it in baseball and basketball as well.

Why do you think it is okay for Brady to say PSI means nothing and then say the reason he sent that memo is because he noticed the difference in PSI the previous game?

Baseballs don't have psi as far as I know, and Brady never said psi means nothing.

[seanc]

Tom Brady does not squeeze the ball, and a ball with less psi gets to its target later. So why would Brady want the psi low? It doesn't even make sense.

Then why wouldn't he have been happy with the higher PSI?

I'll ask the question one more time. Why is him wanting the balls at a lower PSI so laughable but him noticing a higher one and sending a highlighted rule book to the officials perfectly within reason?

[seanc]

Baseballs don't have psi as far as I know, and Brady never said psi means nothing.

They don't and PSI in basketballs wasn't the issue either my point is the types of balls used and the way they are stored have been a point of contention in every sport that I watch.

[cricket]

Then why wouldn't he have been happy with the higher PSI?

I'll ask the question one more time. Why is him wanting the balls at a lower PSI so laughable but him noticing a higher one and sending a highlighted rule book to the officials perfectly within reason?

If he plays his whole life with the balls at a certain range, then all of a sudden, one game they're over 16 psi, then yea, I think you notice the difference. Don't you think it's illogical that he would send a copy of the rules to the refs, and then 10 minutes later have a guy deflate them an unmeasured amount? It doesn't make sense. Add in that weather definitely explains the whole thing, and add in that the NFL told multiple lies. Since when do people believe someone caught in a lie? The whole thing is baffling to me.

[cricket]

They don't and PSI in basketballs wasn't the issue either my point is the types of balls used and the way they are stored have been a point of contention in every sport that I watch.

Well sure as far as ball preparation goes I understand. And as part of the preparation to break in footballs, they are legally deflated and reinflated. This is done by the equipment team. They are then taken to Brady for approval, and then that's over with.

[seanc]

If he plays his whole life with the balls at a certain range, then all of a sudden, one game they're over 16 psi, then yea, I think you notice the difference. The whole thing is baffling to me.

Me too. That's as good a place to end as any.

[seanc]

;)

[cricket]

;)

?

[Derek Vinyard]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7_DNqjCYAEy9KA.jpg

[cricket]

Hey you get the hell out of here!

Btw, soft means texture, not psi:)

[Derek Vinyard]

Hey you get the hell out of here!

Btw, soft means texture, not psi:)

hahahahah I know you're a Pats fan I'm just messing with you Crick :p

Btw GO PANTHERS GO !