GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 or you decide to get caught up in the minutia & pick nits. Disgusting
Pneumonic Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 You mean the speculation necessary because Brady* destroyed his phone? Or the assumptions that were made because the Pats* didn't provide McNally and Jastremski for follow up interviews about the messaages? Sure, I suppose. it certainly fit the narrative which is that the entirely on the Wells report, which it seems Goodell used to administer unprecedented punishment, seems mostly grounded in assumption and speculation.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Sure, I suppose. it certainly fit the narrative which is that the entirely on the Wells report, which it seems Goodell used to administer unprecedented punishment, seems mostly grounded in assumption and speculation. Hard to have a precedent for a policy that was only in place a month or 2 before the infraction, no?
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 or you decide to get caught up in the minutia & pick nits. in a legal case like this, nits can end up kind of important. Hard to have a precedent for a policy that was only in place a month or 2 before the infraction, no? if the policy is properly defined and outlined by the NFL, itll be a huge point for them
K-9 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 There is no recorded and noted T's and P's with which to find their respective delta's. Without these delta's we are unable to solve PV=nRT without making assumptions. Back on point: can we assume Tommy lied about knowing McNally and that he refused to cooperate with the investigation by not providing the specific phone records that were asked for? Is it "reasonable" to assume Brady destroyed his phone in connection with those specific records given the timing of its destruction? Can we assume McNally took the balls out of the officials room without authorization in violation of league protocol? I could go on and on, but Can we assume anything at all about anything the circumstantial evidence points to? GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 There is no recorded and noted T's and P's with which to find their respective delta's. Without these delta's we are unable to solve PV=nRT without making assumptions. So two separate entities, and two separate gauges, with the exact desired result of PSI, is not good enough even though both sides agree that is exactly what happened, including the accused side. Got it.
Pneumonic Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 life isn't lived in a laboratory. You either "see" this for what it is (IMO a small transgression that became an explosive volcano because of brady's many refusals) or you decide to get caught up in the minutia & pick nits. This need not be specific to a lab situation. It's entirely possible to replicate the results in the real world, provided proper testing protocols were in place. The issue is these protocols weren't in place .... yet they form the basis for the entirely of the process which continues to base its judgements on assumptions and speculation. The science is the objective component, in place to (hopefully) remove the biases that come with subjectivity.
K-9 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 This may be true .... I don't know the legal ramifications. However, I do know science and #'s enough to know any conclusion based upon the methodology in place here is ridiculously suspect. Duly noted. Now can you let "the science" go and look at the other 99.9% of the reasoning behind Goodell's ruling? GO BILLS!!!
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 if the policy is properly defined and outlined by the NFL, itll be a huge point for them Yeah, a lot of it will come down to wording I'm sure. And my guess is that the policy is fairly vague, as that has been typical for the NFL. Of course, this is all assuming it doesn't just get thrown out by the judge upon initial review.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) in a legal case like this, nits can end up kind of important. if the policy is properly defined and outlined by the NFL, itll be a huge point for them More like the nits are meant to obscure and distract you from the obvious big picture. That has been the strategy of the Brady defenders, to seize upon one thing and pick it to death and then claim that proves the entire case is flawed. The reality, when viewed as a whole, show a pattern of deceit and obstruction by Tommy boy and his minions. I still contend that there is more being covered up than deflated footballs. Edited July 31, 2015 by PromoTheRobot
Matt in KC Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 This may be true .... I don't know the legal ramifications. However, I do know science and #'s enough to know any conclusion based upon the methodology in place here is ridiculously suspect. I don't even get your argument. I mean I understand what you are saying, but not how you can think that is true. The NFL had an independent assessment of the evidence and a highly-credentialed review of the analysis. The NFL would have been better off if they could have shown there was reasonable questions about whether tampering occurred. I don't get any bias claims. I thought I read someone going further into the math and saying the pressure readings 1) still wouldn't be close at zero degrees 2) Don't explain why the they only affected the Patriot balls. The actual real starting pressure has no impact on the conclusion that only the Pats balls changed a) from the starting point and b) variably, not due to some outside influence like temperature.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 This may be true .... I don't know the legal ramifications. However, I do know science and #'s enough to know any conclusion based upon the methodology in place here is ridiculously suspect. Other than theory, why is it suspect in your mind? Seriously. When both the pro and con sides of the argument totally agree on what the starting point measurement was. Both tested them in close proximity to each other, and both got identical results. And neither side contests its validity or accuracy. There is no argument whatsoever about it.
dave mcbride Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I'm officially retiring from this debate. I've begun to lose interest, and it's not as if I have any love for the Patriots anyway. The board mods might want to post a new job opening for a replacement member of the BRAWACS squad. On to EJ! Edited July 31, 2015 by dave mcbride
K-9 Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 life isn't lived in a laboratory. You either "see" this for what it is (IMO a small transgression that became an explosive volcano because of brady's many refusals) or you decide to get caught up in the minutia & pick nits. It really can be condensed down to this simple construct. This is entirely on Tom Brady. OC made the comparison to Lance Armstrong earlier and I think it's apt in terms of Brady suffering from the same kind of hubris that literally prevents him from admitting the truth. America forgives as long as we aren't lied to. Brady's image is forever tarnished because he simply couldn't man up. And it's a shame because I feel he is one of the best on field performers ever at his position. Much of that will be forgotten as part of his legacy now. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I'm officially retiring from this debate. I've begun to lose interest, and it's not as if I have any love for the Patriots anyway. The board mods might want to post a new job opening for a replacement member of the BRAWACS squad. Because your precious AEI report is now debunked. Just messing with you.
dave mcbride Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Because your precious AEI report is now debunked. Just messing with you. Actually, it was that story on Sally Jenkins posted by MattM that put me over the top. I had to ask myself if this is who I wanted to be allying myself with! Edited July 31, 2015 by dave mcbride
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I still contend that there is more being covered up than deflated footballs. then why continue to escalate?
Pneumonic Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I don't even get your argument. I mean I understand what you are saying, but not how you can think that is true. The NFL had an independent assessment of the evidence and a highly-credentialed review of the analysis. The NFL would have been better off if they could have shown there was reasonable questions about whether tampering occurred. I don't get any bias claims. I thought I read someone going further into the math and saying the pressure readings 1) still wouldn't be close at zero degrees 2) Don't explain why the they only affected the Patriot balls. The actual real starting pressure has no impact on the conclusion that only the Pats balls changed a) from the starting point and b) variably, not due to some outside influence like temperature. Temp alone doesn't account for all things in science discovery process but, without proper starting (and end) points, the ideal gas law is not solvable ....... without making assumptions and inferences. EDIT; adjusted the last sentence for clarity. Edited July 31, 2015 by Pneumonic
GG Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 then why continue to escalate? Ask any person who was nailed for obstruction of justice. Ego & hubris.
Pneumonic Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Other than theory, why is it suspect in your mind? Seriously. When both the pro and con sides of the argument totally agree on what the starting point measurement was. Both tested them in close proximity to each other, and both got identical results. And neither side contests its validity or accuracy. There is no argument whatsoever about it. The NFLPA has questioned the testing methodology. As did the league just recently .... by actually implementing some element of testing control.
Recommended Posts