FWST LBOH: Media gives cheating Patriots a break

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

That is a very good post Eric(been mentioned many times in this thread alone).... but it will go on deaf eyes ...
It makes sense and some dont like that on here.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Fair enough. I stand corrected, even if you did miss my smilie face.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Alas, we must agree to disagree.

 

[Alexander]

Cheating or not, they'll likely have another trophy.

Meanwhile, we are still fumbling around wondering how we frittered away a 13-3 season that set up a clear path to the Super Bowl.

 

[peplaw06]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of all the arguing in circles. I only got into this mess to correct you in your misapplication of the differing types of evidence, and your refusal to believe that there is any evidence that their cheating actually helped them... (which I still can't believe you're sticking to)

But when I bring up the term circumstantial evidence, and you repeatedly say things like this...

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

...
then follow it with a simple sentence like this....

So we have the tapes - circumstantial evidence.
We review them. Do they in and of themselves prove that the Pats won by cheating?

I can't let it go uncorrected. Tapes are NOT circumstantial evidence. The tapes would have shown us direct evidence of what the Pats were doing -- cheating. You could have seen it for your own eyes. That's not circumstantial.

The destruction of said tapes, that's when it become circumstantial.

 

[tyke1doe]

Quite frankly, I'm tired of all the arguing in circles. I only got into this mess to correct you in your misapplication of the differing types of evidence, and your refusal to believe that there is any evidence that their cheating actually helped them... (which I still can't believe you're sticking to)

You're getting tired because you're assuming an argument I never made.
Please go back and re-read my posts.
I didn't say that cheating didn't help the Pats. I said we can't know whether cheating helped them win because a win is made up of many variables.

But when I bring up the term circumstantial evidence, and you repeatedly say things like this...

...
then follow it with a simple sentence like this....
I can't let it go uncorrected. Tapes are NOT circumstantial evidence. The tapes would have shown us direct evidence of what the Pats were doing -- cheating. You could have seen it for your own eyes. That's not circumstantial.

The destruction of said tapes, that's when it become circumstantial.

Again, we're talking past one another, which is obvious since you keep erroneously assigning to me the argument that the tapes didn't help the Pats. I'm talking about whether we could deduce from the tapes whether the Pats gained enough of an advantage to win and if so should they forfeit their victory.

Yes, the tapes are direct evidence of the Pats cheating. But we've already established that fact. So did Godell. Hence, the destruction of the tapes.

But then the argument is offered that he destroyed "evidence." Evidence to prove what? We've already established the Pats cheated.

What would be the point in holding on to the tapes? And the argument made by some here is that we can determine how extensive the cheating was, and to that I say so?

You can't determine from the tapes whether they won or loss. At best, if you entered the tapes as some kind of evidence that the Pats cheated and that cheating helped them win their previous contests and Super Bowls, as some have suggested, the tapes would be circumstantial evidence for that point.

Or, if I can use this definition of circumstantial evidence ...

Circumstantial evidence are a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown.

Conclusion: the Pats cheated.
Direct evidence: video tapes showing they cheated.

Conclusion: The Pats won by cheating.
Circumstantial evidence: video tapes showing they cheated. The tapes may prove they cheated, but the tapes can't prove that they won by cheating.

That was my point, counselor.

 

[peplaw06]

I didn't say that cheating didn't help the Pats. I said we can't know whether cheating helped them win because a win is made up of many variables.

How in the world can you square these two sentences?

That is fatal to your "argument."

You acknowledge that it helped them, then you say we can't determine whether it helped them?

Yes many variables go into getting a win. But it usually takes all of them to get you a win. Wins in the NFL are not easy to come by. Any edge you can get (legally) is usually a big help. They got an edge illegally.

And you can't separate out all the millions of variables... to expect anyone to be able to prove that the cheating alone was THE reason they won all those games in the past is just ridiculous.