FWST LBOH: Media gives cheating Patriots a break

[CliffnDallas]

19-0*

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Here's the problem. You're jumping into a discussion in midstream.

It's not a problem. It's simply the nature of any public medium, especially message boards.

You made a point, and I responded to it. This site does not require that I ignore certain points because their originator finds them problematic.

I have no problem with what you've just said.

There is no dispute that Belichick knowingly and willfully cheated.

Second, you contradicted yourself.

I did?

Please, do tell.

:laugh2:

If the actual benefits of the videotaping are a "non issue" then how can you disagree with my statement that anything revealed in them could have warranted harsher punishment?

I fail to see how I contradicted myself when I have yet even to address the issue of punishment.

Thus far, I've made only one point:

That Belichick knowingly and willfully cheated is the key issue here. The actual benefits of that cheating are largely unimportant. Belihick has demonstrated that he's willing to completely disregard league rules if he believes he can gain a competitive advantage, bringing his character and the veracity of all his mountainous success into question.

I hate to repeat myself, but you're not getting it.

As it stands, you are merely offering my point, in a different way.

How can you even make such a claim when...

1) ...you've already demonstrated that you've failed to grasp my point and

2) ...you just stated that I contradicted myself?

It's a complete fallacy of logic.

I'm saying, they were punished for cheating and all this carping about harsher punishment is whining because we can't determine whether the Pats received an unfair advantage - which only makes any difference if you win - by the tapes.

And I'm contending that whether he benefited or not is largely unimportant. He cheated. Period.

I wouldn't say it was a strawman in as much as I'm arguing with many posters who have different opinions and may assign an opinion to the wrong poster.

Then I suggest you read more closely or hone your reading comprehension skills.

 

[cowboyeric8]

I don't really even understand the points people are making anymore. Ha.

tyke, do tell us what a good analogy would be since you shut down everyone elses and then cry that its not the same.

 

[peplaw06]

Thank you for chiming in, my lawyer friend. But here's where I disagree with you.

1.) Barry Bonds is ONE MAN. The Patriots are a team.
It is easier to determine the effects of a drug on one man than the effect of illegal video taping on a team. Surely, you understand this, counselor.

That's irrelevant. Like Scipio's been saying, in both scenarios, the actors broke the rules. And they knew that they were breaking the rules. That in and of itself is a sort of de facto presumption that the cheating affected the results. Why else would you cheat if it didn't help you?

And the Pats provided more than one tape to the league offices.... Tapes that were destroyed. If the tapes were made in violation of league rules, again it's safe to presume that they were in fact made for a purpose.

2.) Circumstantial evidence (in this case the existence of the tapes) still would not be able to determine whether the Pats would have won their game without the tapes. You have more moving parts/variables than a direct cause-and-effect relationship involving steroids.

Circumstantial evidence by definition won't show a fail safe cause and effect... as you'll see when I explain later.

3.) As for your reference to circumstantial evidence, I offer this from Wikipediat:

Also Circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability.
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another their innocence, the 'benefit of the doubt' principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.

Never a great idea to quote wikipedia unless you know exactly what you're talking about, and it backs you up. I'm not sure you do, and I don't think this does.

First of all, the blurb is talking about a criminal prosecution, in which circumstantial evidence is far less powerful, simply because there's such a high burden of proof. (Which BTW you've already been corrected on.) Since this isn't criminal, and the ONLY evidence we have is circumstantial, it is much stronger.

There is some merit though to the underlined excerpt. There is often more than one logical conclusion that can be made with the aid of circumstantial evidence. The problem is, you haven't provided any logical conclusions. All you've said is that we can't prove anything. Well yeah, the evidence is gone.

But what other logical conclusion is there? They taped multiple teams' signals, they provided those tapes to the league, they were punished by the league, the tapes were destroyed. There are really only three possible conclusions.

1) The tapes didn't help.
2) It was inconclusive.
3) The tapes helped.

The first two aren't logical because the Pats taped the signals, despite it being against the rules, and they were punished by the league. That doesn't square with the idea that they were of no help, or that no one knows if they helped.

To apply that to this case, even though the tapes could suggest an unfair advantage, one could also argue that based on the Pats' performance this year, that their hard work, experience, preparation, talent, etc., had as much to do with their victories as their taping their opponent.

Again, I don't see where you can make a reasonable argument that taping games helped them win. Too many variables unaccounted for.

Well here's where we get on the same path. I don't think that tapes turned over to the league and destroyed could have helped the Pats THIS YEAR. And surely the Pats weren't dumb enough to keep doing it. We certainly have no proof that they have.

The problem with stating that since the Pats are still winning despite not having the tapes, is that this is a different season. The Pats are a different team. You can't say that because they have been successful this season, then the tapes must not have helped them in the past. All of the circumstances are not identical.

Uh, peplaw also knows, as a lawyer, that you couldn't go into court and argue that the cheating resulted in a win, because that's not something that could be proven. Or in legal terms, this case doesn't come close to beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given how bad the Jets were this year and how good the Patriots were this year.

It's already been covered, but BARD is not applicable. Nor are any of the legal "standards of proof." This is the court of public opinion. I can judge them by my own standards of proof, like "if it walks like a duck..." or "if it smells like a rat" etc.

Nope, because you don't know whether it actually resulted in the win. You can't penalize people for that which you don't know. Sorry.

Sure you can. Especially in an arena outside a criminal proceeding.

Ted Donaghy allegedly bet on games he was refereeing in the NBA. No one knows whether his gambling actually affected the outcomes of games. But it against the rules of the league. And he's been punished accordingly.

That Pats have been punished by the league as well, so this point is misguided.

Uh, is this matter under legal dispute?

Is it subject to a court of law?

NO!

But documents are routinely shredded in all sorts of businesses and personal situations.

Yes documents can routinely be shredded. but if suspicion arises from the shredding of those documents, and there is no evidence to the contrary, assumptions that those documents were actually shredded for a reason (aka to hide something), are not unrealistic.

Good question. Apparently, as I understand it, the rule about video taping games was not as clear as it is now. So Godell issues a written directive he sends to all 32 teams that this is not allowed. Anything from that point violates the league's policy. The Pats are caught cheating. They get penalized.

The issue isn't trying to uncover how that happened in the past, especially since it's common knowledge around the league that stealing signals/cheating is common practice - even St. Jimmy Johnson did it. The issue is to make sure it doesn't happen anymore.
That's why the punishment was handed out in such a way.

None of this has anything to do with whether the tapes actually helped the Pats win games.

They've been punished yes. If you want to argue that the punishment was just and not a slap on the wrist, then that's a different argument.

Interesting that you used such an analogy.

I had a young man - down and out - who I had befriended. I let him in my apartment one morning because he needed some food. While I wasn't looking he unlatches my window from inside the apartment. Later, while I'm at work, he steals my television, my watch and a lot of other things.

I file a police report because I know he did it. The police come to my house and take fingerprints. But because I let him in my house, the police say it would be difficult to accuse him of burglary because he could argue that the fingerprints were made while I voluntarily let him in my apartment.

Now back to your analogy, if you were an uninvited guest in my house and you spraypainted the inside of my house, I would have a strong case against you.

And based on the technical advances in forensic science, they would probably be able to find traces of spraypaint on your clothing, linking you to the crime.

That would be more than circumstantial evidence.

So even now your analogy doesn't work.

But keep trying.

This is still circumstantial evidence. That is why I don't think you understand the meaning of the term.

Here's how you can have direct evidence. You can see him do it (with your eyes or video/pics, etc). He can say he did it.

Everything else is basically circumstantial. Traces of spraypaint on clothing is circumstantial. Fingerprints in an apartment are circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence doesn't change it's character to direct evidence , simply because there is more of it.

You typically do have to have more of it, just because the more you have, the easier it is to prove.

 

[Signals]

BTW, JFE is about 16 weeks late on her article.

The Jenster was too preoccupied bad mouthing the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[Temo]

To me, this is an easy answer: Does anyone believe, if Bill Belichick hadn't had a cameraman recording that Jets game, that the Pats wouldn't be 19-0 right now? Anyone?

Because that ONE taping is all that counts THIS SEASON. So why should 19-0 get an asterik?

 

[CliffnDallas]

To me, this is an easy answer: Does anyone believe, if Bill Belichick hadn't had a cameraman recording that Jets game, that the Pats wouldn't be 19-0 right now? Anyone?

Because that ONE taping is all that counts THIS SEASON. So why should 19-0 get an asterik?

Because if he tapes. How many other ways does he cheat?
19-0*

 

[cowboyeric8]

To me, this is an easy answer: Does anyone believe, if Bill Belichick hadn't had a cameraman recording that Jets game, that the Pats wouldn't be 19-0 right now? Anyone?

Because that ONE taping is all that counts THIS SEASON. So why should 19-0 get an asterik?

And who knows how the season plays out if they lose that first game. Which was close by the way.

 

[tyke1doe]

It's not a problem. It's simply the nature of any public medium, especially message boards.

You made a point, and I responded to it. This site does not require that I ignore certain points because their originator finds them problematic.

Are you incapable of following the flow of conversation?

My response to you was predicated on this comment:

Who's "you guys?" I'm not part of any faction or group here.

I'm responding to a specific statement of yours: "And there's no direct-correlation that you can prove that the videotaping, per se, resulted in a win." You reiterate this point in a more recent post when you make this statement: "I disagree with the opinion that the tapes could have yielded anything more to warrant a more severe punishment."

In my opinion, the actual benefits of the videotaping are almost a non-issue. Regardless of whether or not the "videotaping, per se, resuted in a win," Belichick still knowingly and willfully cheated. In my opinion, this undeniable fact should be the paramount issue in this discusion, not the benefits of the cheating. Clearly, Belichick believed that illegally videotaping opponent signals provided enough of a competitive advantage to warrant ignoring a league-wide edict less than 2 days after it had been distributed.

First, you responded to my post.

Second, by not following the flow of conversation, you have no framework to understand the argument, which is apparent since you essentially make my point.

In my opinion, the actual benefits of the videotaping are almost a non-issue.

Exactly. That's why destroying them is not an issue.

Regardless of whether or not the "videotaping, per se, resuted in a win," Belichick still knowingly and willfully cheated. In my opinion, this undeniable fact should be the paramount issue in this discusion, not the benefits of the cheating.

Exactly. That's why he was punished.

So what is your point? You essentially entered an argument with me assuming that I'm disputing those assertions. And you did so because you didn't read all of the posts.

Now you don't have to, but you make yourself look like a fool when you basically reiterate facts not in dispute.

I fail to see how I contradicted myself when I have yet even to address the issue of punishment.

Thus far, I've made only one point:

That Belichick knowingly and willfully cheated is the key issue here. The actual benefits of that cheating are largely unimportant. Belihick has demonstrated that he's willing to completely disregard league rules if he believes he can gain a competitive advantage, bringing his character and the veracity of all his mountainous success into question.

I hate to repeat myself, but you're not getting it.

Fair enough. You did not make an argument for harsher punishment.

In responding to so many posts, I may have assigned another poster's argument to you.

My bad.

How can you even make such a claim when...

1) ...you've already demonstrated that you've failed to grasp my point and

2) ...you just stated that I contradicted myself?

It's a complete fallacy of logic.

My initial point stands: you are arguing that which is not in dispute. I don't dispute the fact that Belichick and the Pats cheated.

As for the punishment argument, you are correct. You did not offer an opinion on harsher punishment. So I can admit when I have misintrepreted a person's position. I hope that shows the honesty and objectivity I'm trying to bring to this debate.

My points are these:

1. Belichick and the Pats cheated and they were and should have been punished.
2. There was no precedent to determine a "fair" punishment. So any claims that the punishment was "unfair" are merely subjective.
3. As NFL Commissioner, Roger Godell has the right to levy the penalty, especially since the Patriots violated his written memo as commissioner.
4. Destroying the evidence wasn't a big deal in my estimation because:
a.) This was not a legal proceeding where those tapes had to be kept as evidence.
b.) It would have been impossible to assess their impact. Or more simply put, because there are so many variables to winning (preparation, talent, coaching, mental fortitude, attitude that given day, weather, etc.), there's no way you can determine whether the Patriots received an "unfair" advantage. And for all practical purposes, "unfair advantage" only has meaning in wins-losses, especially since the NFL forbids betting lines.
c.) The reasons for destroying the tapes are greater than the reasons for keeping them, particularly since
i.) it sends a clear message that NO tapes should be used
ii.) and it prevents copied tapes from being used at home or in the office or whereever.

And I'm contending that whether he benefited or not is largely unimportant. He cheated. Period.

That's not in dispute.

Then I suggest you read more closely or hone your reading comprehension skills.

I have. But I would also suggest that you not respond to threads until you properly understand what the debate is about all.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's irrelevant. Like Scipio's been saying, in both scenarios, the actors broke the rules. And they knew that they were breaking the rules. That in and of itself is a sort of de facto presumption that the cheating affected the results. Why else would you cheat if it didn't help you?

Again, I'm not disputing that they cheated. My argument in this thread is about the punishment and whether it was severe or not.

The issue of "destroying the evidence" - which I wasn't the first to raise - suggests that by doing so, it prevents the league from uncovering the fullness of the scandal. But my point is so?
We know that the Patriots were doing this over a period of years.
Why do we need the tapes to tell us that?
The only other reason would be - as suggested - that somehow we should discover the scope of that cheating and invalidate other wins.

And that's when I said that's impossible.

Don't segregate my point from the entire argument.

Circumstantial evidence by definition won't show a fail safe cause and effect... as you'll see when I explain later.

Never a great idea to quote wikipedia unless you know exactly what you're talking about, and it backs you up. I'm not sure you do, and I don't think this does.

First of all, the blurb is talking about a criminal prosecution, in which circumstantial evidence is far less powerful, simply because there's such a high burden of proof. (Which BTW you've already been corrected on.) Since this isn't criminal, and the ONLY evidence we have is circumstantial, it is much stronger.

There is some merit though to the underlined excerpt. There is often more than one logical conclusion that can be made with the aid of circumstantial evidence. The problem is, you haven't provided any logical conclusions. All you've said is that we can't prove anything. Well yeah, the evidence is gone.

First, I'm not the one who initially raised the legal standard. In fact, I argued that documents are destroyed all the time. It was then that someone offered the legal argument that documents aren't shredded if a trial is pending.

Second, I have to chuckle because you argued that my definition was inappropriate but you found an appropriate application for it. :laugh2:
I bolded the above information to further my point. The tapes may have been circumstantial evidence. But what would they have told us? That the Pats cheated. Would they have told us whether they would have won the game?
Not necessarily because there are more viables involved in winning a game than simply knowing a team's signals. Again, there's the mental aspect, talent, preparation, coaching, attitude, etc.
So we have the tapes - circumstantial evidence.
We review them. Do they in and of themselves prove that the Pats won by cheating?
You can't say because of all the other factors.
That is a logical conclusion. And it's one, I believe, that factored into destroying the tapes. Simply put, just having a team's signals doesn't mean a team will win. There are other factors involved. That's why you can't say definitely.
It's not a direct cause-and-effect relationship unlike, saying, you pull the trigger of a gun aimed at someone, and it kills them.

But what other logical conclusion is there? They taped multiple teams' signals, they provided those tapes to the league, they were punished by the league, the tapes were destroyed. There are really only three possible conclusions.

1) The tapes didn't help.
2) It was inconclusive.
3) The tapes helped.

The first two aren't logical because the Pats taped the signals, despite it being against the rules, and they were punished by the league. That doesn't square with the idea that they were of no help, or that no one knows if they helped.

I never said they weren't of any help. I said that practically, "unfair advantage" has no meaning outside of wins and losses.
And some posters are suggesting that the Patriots forfeit a game/games because they cheated.

There's no way to know whether they would have won or loss those games. Yes, they gained an unfair advantage. That's not in dispute.
What's in dispute is whether they would have won/loss those games without that advantage.
That can not be determined.
And, here again, the only reason why this is an issue to many fans is because the Pats are winning. If they loss or if they were lossing, it isn't an issue.

Well here's where we get on the same path. I don't think that tapes turned over to the league and destroyed could have helped the Pats THIS YEAR. And surely the Pats weren't dumb enough to keep doing it. We certainly have no proof that they have.

The problem with stating that since the Pats are still winning despite not having the tapes, is that this is a different season. The Pats are a different team. You can't say that because they have been successful this season, then the tapes must not have helped them in the past. All of the circumstances are not identical.

Again, I don't think I said the tapes didn't help. We're arguing two separate tracks of thought.

It's already been covered, but BARD is not applicable. Nor are any of the legal "standards of proof." This is the court of public opinion. I can judge them by my own standards of proof, like "if it walks like a duck..." or "if it smells like a rat" etc.

Again, I didn't raise the legal argument first. I don't think it applies here either. But since it was offered, I followed the argument.

Oh, and I have no problems with the court of public opinion. But Godell's judgment/punishment shouldn't necessarily follow the court of public opinion either.

Sure you can. Especially in an arena outside a criminal proceeding.

Ted Donaghy allegedly bet on games he was refereeing in the NBA. No one knows whether his gambling actually affected the outcomes of games. But it against the rules of the league. And he's been punished accordingly.

That Pats have been punished by the league as well, so this point is misguided.

Nice try, but not even close to my point.
Donaghy was punished because he violated a league rule. He was punished because of what he knew, i.e., he wasn't suppose to be engaging gambling.
Similarly, Belichick and the Patriots organization was punished based on what they knew, i.e., that Godell said videotaping signals in game is not allowed.

Yes documents can routinely be shredded. but if suspicion arises from the shredding of those documents, and there is no evidence to the contrary, assumptions that those documents were actually shredded for a reason (aka to hide something), are not unrealistic.

Then I would have to make an argument why those documents were shredded. And based on what I've already argued, I can make a reasonable argument that they should have been.

None of this has anything to do with whether the tapes actually helped the Pats win games.

Right, because we can't know for certain if they did.

They've been punished yes. If you want to argue that the punishment was just and not a slap on the wrist, then that's a different argument.

That's what part of the argument is, especially from fans who think the Patriots got a slap on the wrist. With all due respect, you seem to be jumping into the discussion in midstream. The debate is not whether the Pats cheated but whether they were sufficiently punished. That's the issue in this thread.

This is still circumstantial evidence. That is why I don't think you understand the meaning of the term.

I understand the term. I've covered enough criminal cases to understand what circumstantial evidence is.

Here's how you can have direct evidence. You can see him do it (with your eyes or video/pics, etc). He can say he did it.

Everything else is basically circumstantial. Traces of spraypaint on clothing is circumstantial. Fingerprints in an apartment are circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence doesn't change it's character to direct evidence , simply because there is more of it.

You typically do have to have more of it, just because the more you have, the easier it is to prove.

I understand that.
But here again, it is different comparing situation which led themselves to simplier cause-and-effect relationships than those that have movable variables.

You break into my house, you steal my television set. You've never been in my house. Your fingerprints are in my house. You're found with my television set.
All of that is circumstantial evidence. But it involves a simplier cause-and-effect relationship.

However, you steal signals, you tape them, you teach your team the signals. And your team wins. That's too simplistic because you have to also include other variable such as talent, preparation, coaching, because all of those elements go into winning.

It's not the same as simply stealing something from someone's house. That's why arguing circumstantial evidence is somewhat misapplied in this case, especially when the argument has been offered that the Pats cheated and by cheating their unfair advantage led to winning.

That is something you simply cannot prove.

 

[tyke1doe]

And who knows how the season plays out if they lose that first game. Which was close by the way.

Yes, 38-14 is a very close game.

I guess the 38-17 beating the Cowboys put on the Eagles was close too. :laugh2:

 

[cowboyeric8]

Yes, 38-14 is a very close game.

I guess the 38-17 beating the Cowboys put on the Eagles was close too. :laugh2:

It was 14-7 at half. Who know if they hadn't cheated how it would have turned out.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Are you incapable of following the flow of conversation?

My response to you was predicated on this comment:

First, you responded to my post.

Second, by not following the flow of conversation, you have no framework to understand the argument, which is apparent since you essentially make my point.

So what is your point? You essentially entered an argument with me assuming that I'm disputing those assertions. And you did so because you didn't read all of the posts.

Now you don't have to, but you make yourself look like a fool when you basically reiterate facts not in dispute.

I have. But I would also suggest that you not respond to threads until you properly understand what the debate is about all.

In all honestly, I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here. It's difficult to believe that a person could so consistently and egregiously miss a point that's been explained to him numerous times.

But I'll give it another try. My participation on this thread was predicated entirely on the follow comment from you:

And because it can't be proven. You can't prove any of what you've said and even if they were videotaping other teams' signals, you still have to execute. And there's no direct-correlation that you can prove that the videotaping, per se, resulted in a win.

In this statement, you clearly intimate that the actual benefit of the cheating (i.e. whether or not the "videotaping resulted in a win") should factor into our considerations here. I, however, disagree. My view of cheaters does not change simply because their cheating failed to produce the desired outcome.

In reality, my reiterated statement about Belichik's willful cheating does dispute your above assertion; however, you either refuse to acknowledge this reality or can't see it. Either way, I'm not simply "making your point for you."

And your assertions that I'm not following the flow or context of the debate are ludicrious and completely false. I'm not talking about rainbows and fourleaf clovers here. I responded directly to one of your comments (see above).

I'm not violating the rhetorical "framework" simply because I don't address the points you would rather me address.

You're free to retract the statement in question and concede the point. But I won't stop broaching the issue simply because you have no argument for it.

You're also free to rebut my argument, but I should warn you that creating scarecrow opponents, generalizing your opponent, erroneously questioning your opponents knowledge of the argument's context, mistakenly claiming that your opponent has contradicted himself, and calling your opponent foolish do not classify as substantive rebuttals. And those who would use them fall more in line with "looking foolish."

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Pats do not deserve a break--my goodness

 

[tyke1doe]

It was 14-7 at half. Who know if they hadn't cheated how it would have turned out.

Yes, who would know.
All we know is that they got beat by 24 points.
That's hardly close.

 

[tyke1doe]

In all honestly, I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here. It's difficult to believe that a person could so consistently and egregiously miss a point that's been explained to him numerous times.

You know, I'm asking the same question.

In this statement, you clearly intimate that the actual benefit of the cheating (i.e. whether or not the "videotaping resulted in a win") should factor into our considerations here. I, however, disagree. My view of cheaters does not change simply because their cheating failed to produce the desired outcome.

And this is why I wonder if you're on the same page as I. Notice my first post in this thread.

First, the media HAS been talking about Spygate. Every game that the Pats win, someone, somewhere whether Don Shula, Mercury Morris, LT, Peter King, Wade Phillips, the Ravens, Anthony Smith, etc., will mention how their record is tainted - or raise comments from others who say such - how they get the benefit of the refs' calls, etc.

Second, everyone's talking about how the Patriots benefited from having a library of other team's signals. So?
If teams aren't smart enough to know that ...
a.) other teams know their signals and
b.) to change signals when you play an opponent who knows your signals

then those teams deserve to get beat.

Third, how do you definitively determine that the Patriots wins this year are a product of "Spygate?"
You can't. PERIOD.

So the league can't punish them any more than it has. Maybe it could have suspended Belichick for a game. But it has already taken away a 1st round draft choice.

Godell can't punish the team beyond what it did because there's no proof that Spygate benefited them.

Obviously, you haven't been following the argument closely. Many Cowboys fans have implied that because the Pats cheated previously, their wins must be accompanied by an asterisk. That implies they won based on cheating. Maybe they did. But that can't be known.

Moreover, YoMick suggests that they forfeit a game this year because they cheated. So the issue has been raised. And that, among other comments, is what I was responding to.

I'm sorry if you wish to focus on something different than the topic I was addressing. But it seems you are merely arguing with yourself since the discussion has progressed beyond that point.

In reality, my reiterated statement about Belichik's willful cheating does dispute your above assertion; however, you either refuse to acknowledge this reality or can't see it. Either way, I'm not simply "making your point for you."

No, it does not. I agree with you that he willfully cheated. That point was never in dispute. The issue is how harsh he should be penalized.

Since you're not talking about that, you've basically admitted that ...
a.) you haven't been paying attention to the conversation
b.) you're still trying to argue a point that isn't even a factor in this conversation.

And your assertions that I'm not following the flow or context of the debate are ludicrious and completely false. I'm not talking about rainbows and fourleaf clovers here. I responded directly to one of your comments (see above).

No, you are not following the flow of conversaton or context.

You have already said you're not arguing punishment. But I am. I'm questioning whether the Patriots could be punished additionally and more severely if the tapes couldn't reveal conclusively they won through cheating. Whether the tapes were still here or not, that could never be proven. And to invalidate a win, that, IMO, would have to be proven conclusively.

I'm not violating the rhetorical "framework" simply because I don't address the points you would rather me address.

Well, it's a very strange way to argue.

This is how this argument flows:

Tyke1doe: how do you definitively determine that the Patriots wins this year are a product of "Spygate?"
You can't. PERIOD.

Scipio: We know that Belichick cheated and willfully cheated, that should be the focus. What the tapes may or may not have revealed is irrelevant.
Tyke1doe: Correct. That's why I'm saying you can't punish them beyond what was established because there's no way of knowing whether the win against the Jets or any other team wouldn't have happened sans the cheating. Thus, you're arguing my point.
Scipio: I'm not arguing your point, I'm only saying that Belichick cheated.
Tyke1doe: But that's already established. I'm having a conversation with many folks in here and the issue was raised that the Pats should have been punished more severely.

If you're not talking punishment, then you probably need to exit this argument because that's what I'm talking about and what YoMick was talking about.

But I guess entering a post merely to argue and not understanding the full context constitutes logic around here?

You're free to retract the statement in question and concede the point. But I won't stop broaching the issue simply because you have no argument for it.

:laugh1:

Of course, I don't have an argument for it. I agree with you. Belichick willfully and deliberately cheated and brought his integrity into question.

But you've already said you aren't talking about punishment, so I really don't know what your purpose is other than to be the stater of the obvious.

You're also free to rebut my argument, but I should warn you that creating scarecrow opponents, generalizing your opponent, erroneously questioning your opponents knowledge of the argument's context, mistakenly claiming that your opponent has contradicted himself, and calling your opponent foolish do not classify as substantive rebuttals. And those who would use them fall more in line with "looking foolish."

As do those who use run-on sentences.

Simply put, I agree with you that Belichick cheated willfully and deliberately.

You said your argument isn't about punishment and that regardless of what the tapes could or couldn't prove, Belichick is still a cheat.

So our point of disagreement is what exactly?

 

[royhitshard]

Ah, the conspiracy theories and theorists.

First, the media HAS been talking about Spygate. Every game that the Pats win, someone, somewhere whether Don Shula, Mercury Morris, LT, Peter King, Wade Phillips, the Ravens, Anthony Smith, etc., will mention how their record is tainted - or raise comments from others who say such - how they get the benefit of the refs' calls, etc.

Second, everyone's talking about how the Patriots benefited from having a library of other team's signals. So?
If teams aren't smart enough to know that ...
a.) other teams know their signals and
b.) to change signals when you play an opponent who knows your signals

then those teams deserve to get beat.

Third, how do you definitely determine that the Patriots wins this year are a product of "Spygate?"
You can't. PERIOD.

So the league can't punish them any more than it has. Maybe it could have suspended Belichick for a game. But it has already taken away a 1st round draft choice.

Godell can't punish the team beyond what it did because there's no proof that Spygate benefited them.

The Pats beat every team on their schedule. They are now in the Super Bowl and have a chance to be 19-0. If they win, contragulations. A new season begins, and another team can emerge as the ultimate winner.

Let it go, folks.

Great post!

 

[silver]

you guys are making me comitt the biggest sin of all cowboys fans: root for the evil giants and their gap tothed defensive end. :ralph:
nevertheless
atriots:

 

[cowboyeric8]

Yes, who would know.
All we know is that they got beat by 24 points.
That's hardly close.

There should be an * by that win, because during that game they did get caught cheating. I'm not saying for the past, no body can prove any of that because they destroyed the evidence. All I'm saying is they should have lost that first game because they cheated.

I'm not denying their other wins, I'm just saying that they should have one loss on their record.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

As do those who use run-on sentences.

As a general rule, you should understand a particular grammar rule before you try to enforce it. Otherwise, you truly do look foolish.

Run-on sentences have two independent clauses that are joined without proper punctuation or the necessary conjunction. This definition simply does not apply to my sentence below:

"You're also free to rebut my argument, but I should warn you that creating scarecrow opponents, generalizing your opponent, erroneously questioning your opponents knowledge of the argument's context, mistakenly claiming that your opponent has contradicted himself, and calling your opponent foolish do not classify as substantive rebuttals."

As you can plainly see, the sentence above is a compound sentence as it uses the proper punctuation, a comma, between "argument" and "but." Furthermore, in the second clause of the sentence, the commas are merely seperating items in a series, and none of these items can stand alone as an independent clause. For instance, "generalizing your opponent" is not a complete sentence.

Despite popular belief, a sentence can be of indefinite length as long as it uses the proper punction and conjunctions.

For the record, I'm not a grammar ****. These boards are meant for relaxed, colloquial discourse. But I will not hesistate to correct those who invoke grammar rules improperly.