Stephen A.: Hardy not responsible for Cowboys' atrocity

[GimmeTheBall!]

Hey Gimme I'm on my way down to the Pig Pen Bar here in Farmer's Branch. They are having all the beer and pigs feet you want for 15 dollars !!! Are you coming down to watch the game and drink a few ????

Not acquainted with Pig pen bar, but I was going to CARROLLTON where the food is fancier because they use ranch dressing and sometimes have paper napkins at the fancier places. Also in CARROLLTON they welcome gun-carrying galoots and I am so there!

 

[dallasdave]

Not acquainted with Pig pen bar, but I was going to CARROLLTON where the food is fancier because they use ranch dressing and sometimes have paper napkins at the fancier places. Also in CARROLLTON they welcome gun-carrying galoots and I am so there!

Oh bring your side arm in at the Pig Pen !!! Every time someone scores there is another hole in the ceiling !!!!!!

 

[dallasdave]

Not acquainted with Pig pen bar, but I was going to CARROLLTON where the food is fancier because they use ranch dressing and sometimes have paper napkins at the fancier places. Also in CARROLLTON they welcome gun-carrying galoots and I am so there!

Best pigs feet in the USA !!! I have already eaten a dozen and drank 9 beers !!!

 

[Dwight]

No, your response is so much better, Wordsworth.

If this is your attempt to crack at me it fell short. Learn what's going on before you make comments about something.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Nope. Romo and then Dez's injury and Garrett being an average coach who couldn't prepare a team to just some victories in their absence are.

 

[tyke1doe]

So you are saying to the short leash norm of black coaches, Marvin is the exception? I'm saying it's not that simple. The sort leash norm applies to almost all coaches, even white ones(Chip Kelly, Tony Sparano, Steve Spagnuolo, Todd Haley, Jack Del Rio). Marvin is the exception but so is Jason Garrett and it's got nothing to do with race.

Fair enough. But we're talking about perceptions. The argument here is whether Stephen A. is a racist for mentioning issues of race. Some seem to think he is merely for mentioning race. Others say he isn't because what he said doesn't fit the definition of racism or being a racist. Moreover, he is merely voicing the perception many black athletes, assistant coaches and coaches have with respect to situations such as Garrett being given chance after chance. Who is correct? You think you are; they think they are. I would ask you how do you know it has nothing to do with race? You would have to understand and know an owners motive to say so wouldn't you?

Exempting human behavior from the perpetual nature of truth is something you need to explain rather than just state as fact. Give me an example of how truth somehow becomes untrue when the human factor is at play. Truth is an absolute so I don't see how you can make that statement but I'm open and willing to have you explain it to me.

Let's backtrack, you said truth is perpetual. You also said if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth. So let's start there.
I said this would apply to empirical scientific truth. So let's say I believed that lightning was produced by lightning bugs bumping together in the clouds. I couldn't prove that because I can't ascend to the clouds observe it. So I teach it as truth. But once I conducted experiments to prove how lightning is produced, then that truth stands. Thus, truth is perpetual.

But let's take the story of the boy who cried wolf. The first time, he lies. The second time he lies. And so on until 10th time. He has been proven wrong repeatedly. But the 11th time he's telling the truth because a wolf appears. By your definition that truth is perpetual, the boy crying wolf is telling a lie even if a wolf actually showed up.

See the difference?

 

[tyke1doe]

Not going to dredge all his snipes and innuendo. Just know that he looks at sports in terms of color. Every time he opens his mouth there is a sense that he has big-time biases.
So you define his altruistic, nonbiased tendencies OK? ... Not so easy, huh?

Being bias is different than being a racist. Please don't assign to me an argument I didn't make. You know what that's called.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Being bias is different than being a racist. Please don't assign to me an argument I didn't make. You know what that's called.

No, mate own up to you query.
Bias is the father of racism. His biases have a strong whiff of racial animus. It is well known how he skirts around prejudicial and biased comments that in impolite company we call racism.
Any other commentator making so many incendiary, biased asides and inflammatory rhetoric, he'd be fired, but we live in an era where selective demogogues get a free pass.
SAS is an idiot and an uncontrolled hater.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Oh bring your side arm in at the Pig Pen !!! Every time someone scores there is another hole in the ceiling !!!!!!

That is the America I was promised and all I can say is more drink, guns and women!!!!

 

[JoeKing]

Fair enough. But we're talking about perceptions. The argument here is whether Stephen A. is a racist for mentioning issues of race. Some seem to think he is merely for mentioning race. Others say he isn't because what he said doesn't fit the definition of racism or being a racist. Moreover, he is merely voicing the perception many black athletes, assistant coaches and coaches have with respect to situations such as Garrett being given chance after chance. Who is correct? You think you are; they think they are. I would ask you how do you know it has nothing to do with race? You would have to understand and know an owners motive to say so wouldn't you?

SAS said what he said then qualified it by saying black folks don't get that kind of preferential treatment. But his premise ignores Marvin Lewis getting the same preferential treatment, thus invalidating his qualifier. It doesn't negate that that's how, as he said it "black folks feel" but without the qualifier it's just a feeling and no proof of it being reality. It very well could be reality but without proof, we should never make or believe such claims. I say again, Will McClay(a proud black man) is the real brains behind the Cowboys football operations. I doubt that would be true if race had anything to do with the HC keeping his job.

Let's backtrack, you said truth is perpetual. You also said if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth. So let's start there.
I said this would apply to empirical scientific truth. So let's say I believed that lightning was produced by lightning bugs bumping together in the clouds. I couldn't prove that because I can't ascend to the clouds observe it. So I teach it as truth. But once I conducted experiments to prove how lightning is produced, then that truth stands. Thus, truth is perpetual.

But let's take the story of the boy who cried wolf. The first time, he lies. The second time he lies. And so on until 10th time. He has been proven wrong repeatedly. But the 11th time he's telling the truth because a wolf appears. By your definition that truth is perpetual, the boy crying wolf is telling a lie even if a wolf actually showed up.

See the difference?

The only part of that story that is applicable to truth is when the wolf appeared. The boy's lies are not truth so they do not apply to my definition that truth is perpetual. Yes, the boy said the same thing each time but let's not confuse one moral for another. The moral of this story is always tell the truth if you want to be believed when it matters... something SAS didn't learn.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, mate own up to you query.
Bias is the father of racism. His biases have a strong whiff of racial animus. It is well known how he skirts around prejudicial and biased comments that in impolite company we call racism.
Any other commentator making so many incendiary, biased asides and inflammatory rhetoric, he'd be fired, but we live in an era where selective demogogues get a free pass.
SAS is an idiot and an uncontrolled hater.

Go back to sleep. ZZZzzzzz

 

[dallasdave]

That is the America I was promised and all I can say is more drink, guns and women!!!!

 

[tyke1doe]

SAS said what he said then qualified it by saying black folks don't get that kind of preferential treatment. But his premise ignores Marvin Lewis getting the same preferential treatment, thus invalidating his qualifier. It doesn't negate that that's how, as he said it "black folks feel" but without the qualifier it's just a feeling and no proof of it being reality. It very well could be reality but without proof, we should never make or believe such claims. I say again, Will McClay(a proud black man) is the real brains behind the Cowboys football operations. I doubt that would be true if race had anything to do with the HC keeping his job.

Let me put your argument in the proper context:
1. Stephen A. didn't say black folks don't get that kind of preferential treatment. He said he doesn't know of any black coaches who get that kind of preferential treatment. A subtle difference, but a difference nevertheless.
2. Stephen A. also talks about what qualified Jason Garrett to become head coach of the Cowboys. He was offensive coordinator and assistant head coach of the Cowboys. He had no other leadership experience other than being groomed by Jerry Jones. Marvin Lewis, on the other hand, had been the defensive coordinator for the Baltimore Ravens, whose defense was primarily responsible for winning the Ravens first Super Bowl over the Giants.
3. Marvin Lewis was more qualified to be the Bengals coach than Garrett was qualified to be the coach of the greatest franchise there is ... because of his relationship with Jerry Jones. Much of Stephen A's criticism of Jason Garrett has to do with him benefiting from the "good ole boys" network, which is why the Rooney Rule was adopted. And, yes, the inability to be a part of that "network" had a lot to do with race and the inability of blacks to have access to the same avenues whites had. Stephen A. even quotes Bill Walsh noted how relationships play an impact in coaches being hired.
4. Stephen A. is speaking about perceptions based on history. He even says "And people wonder why black folks" question situations like this.
5. I'm sure you've heard the saying that anecdotal example doesn't trump established data and evidence. Just because Marvin Lewis is a longstanding coach in the league doesn't negate Stephen A.'s point, which had more dimensions to it than you're giving him credit for.
6. You mentioned Will McClay, but McClay isn't a coach. And he had far more stops than Jason Garrett did (who was a quarterback coach in Miami) before he ascended to his current position.
7. Stephen A. also said white/white coaches should be mad too because Jason Garrett is benefiting from his privilege of knowing Jerry Jones. So he expands his point beyond race saying Garrett is qualified to be a coach.

In summary, you are focusing on one portion of Stephen A.'s argument without understanding the totality of his points - which are valid.

The only part of that story that is applicable to truth is when the wolf appeared. The boy's lies are not truth so they do not apply to my definition that truth is perpetual. Yes, the boy said the same thing each time but let's not confuse one moral for another.

But didn't you say truth is perpetual and if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth? I gave you an example which contradictions your statement. You boxed yourself in a corner.
But let me give you another example: I say I like chocolate better than any other flavor of ice cream I've tasted. Is that a true statement? Yes. Now let's say I start eating vanilla and come to like vanilla better than any other flavor. Am I telling the truth? Yes.
Again, another example that goes contrary to your argument.
Now, I agree with you that there is an absolute truth, but truth can also be subjective too. You must have an absolute foundation to even make sense of subjective truth.

The moral of this story is always tell the truth if you want to be believed when it matters... something SAS didn't learn.

You don't believe Stephen A. anyway so of course, you would come to that conclusion. But a lot of people DO believe he's telling the truth and can point to examples such as the very existence of the Rooney Rule.

And, apparently, SAS learned something since he's on a program that is one of ESPN's most highly rated shows.

 

[rpntex]

Very rarely to people argue any factor as the SOLE reason for a teams collapse. That's nitpicking if one thinks another person is actually arguing it and not using hyperbole.

When they speak about Hardy and the lockerroom culture, they imply he was a MAJOR factor in the season of failure, when none of that has any practical reality on the field.

Stephen's point is clear.. The main problem is Garrett and arguing about people like Hardy is a hogwash excuse. The defense was putting up plus twenty before he came.

The point remains that SAS was doing what he does (at times) - throwing out a non-argument to make his point. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has said Hardy was "to blame for the Cowboys atrocity". The hyperbole is ridiculous.

Was Hardy a major factor in the season of failure? We3 really don't know, but that it has been reported as such is accurate. Guess what...Romo getting hurt was an even bigger factor. Dex getting hurt was a big factor. A defense that couldn't generate TPs was a major factor. There were a lot of "major" factors. So why does he single what has been implied out Hardy? .It's just hype and hyperbole to make a point.

 

[JoeKing]

Let me put your argument in the proper context:
1. Stephen A. didn't say black folks don't get that kind of preferential treatment. He said he doesn't know of any black coaches who get that kind of preferential treatment. A subtle difference, but a difference nevertheless.
2. Stephen A. also talks about what qualified Jason Garrett to become head coach of the Cowboys. He was offensive coordinator and assistant head coach of the Cowboys. He had no other leadership experience other than being groomed by Jerry Jones. Marvin Lewis, on the other hand, had been the defensive coordinator for the Baltimore Ravens, whose defense was primarily responsible for winning the Ravens first Super Bowl over the Giants.
3. Marvin Lewis was more qualified to be the Bengals coach than Garrett was qualified to be the coach of the greatest franchise there is ... because of his relationship with Jerry Jones. Much of Stephen A's criticism of Jason Garrett has to do with him benefiting from the "good ole boys" network, which is why the Rooney Rule was adopted. And, yes, the inability to be a part of that "network" had a lot to do with race and the inability of blacks to have access to the same avenues whites had. Stephen A. even quotes Bill Walsh noted how relationships play an impact in coaches being hired.
4. Stephen A. is speaking about perceptions based on history. He even says "And people wonder why black folks" question situations like this.
5. I'm sure you've heard the saying that anecdotal example doesn't trump established data and evidence. Just because Marvin Lewis is a longstanding coach in the league doesn't negate Stephen A.'s point, which had more dimensions to it than you're giving him credit for.
6. You mentioned Will McClay, but McClay isn't a coach. And he had far more stops than Jason Garrett did (who was a quarterback coach in Miami) before he ascended to his current position.
7. Stephen A. also said white/white coaches should be mad too because Jason Garrett is benefiting from his privilege of knowing Jerry Jones. So he expands his point beyond race saying Garrett is qualified to be a coach.

In summary, you are focusing on one portion of Stephen A.'s argument without understanding the totality of his points - which are valid.




But didn't you say truth is perpetual and if it can be proven wrong even once, it never was the truth? I gave you an example which contradictions your statement. You boxed yourself in a corner.
But let me give you another example: I say I like chocolate better than any other flavor of ice cream I've tasted. Is that a true statement? Yes. Now let's say I start eating vanilla and come to like vanilla better than any other flavor. Am I telling the truth? Yes.
Again, another example that goes contrary to your argument.
Now, I agree with you that there is an absolute truth, but truth can also be subjective too. You must have an absolute foundation to even make sense of subjective truth.



You don't believe Stephen A. anyway so of course, you would come to that conclusion. But a lot of people DO believe he's telling the truth and can point to examples such as the very existence of the Rooney Rule.

And, apparently, SAS learned something since he's on a program that is one of ESPN's most highly rated shows.

You are now trying to change the argument from why JG keeps his job to how he got it in the first place... two very different things. Who he knew had a great deal to do with how he got his job. I would never argue against that point and it doesn't support SAS's claim that black coaches don't get the same preferential treatment. BTW, black coaches are black folks. I don't know why you think that distinction makes a difference to the discussion at hand but okay.

Let's discuss when SAS talks about perception. Perception, no matter what it based on is never truth in and of itself. Perception can deceive. That's one of the tricks of a magician. When the truth is not known one talks about what they perceive. When SAS speaks about perceptions based on history, let's not equate that with truth on the present. They are not the same thing.

While it is true that I am only focusing on one portion of SAS's argument, you should not conclude I don't understand the totality of his points. I do understand his other points. I do not need to disagree with everything he says to disagree with the portion I am focused on.

Your original example did not contradict my statement. The boy established himself as a liar to the point that even when he told the truth it was perceived as a lie. In the end, perception got him face to face with a wolf with no help coming. That story has no applicable application of perpetual truth. I did not box myself in a corner. Your second example with the ice cream I give you credit for. But you are still not applying the perpetuity of truth correctly. Your example includes a quantum shift in time which enables truth to shift with it. If we take your example and dissect it into individual slices of time, then we see truth is perpetual within each slice. As long as the question about ice cream is always answered honestly, perpetuity of truth exists.

The Rooney Rule is yet another topic. I could go on another several paragraphs if I address it, so I will not other than to say I do not agree with it's application today.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Go back to sleep. ZZZzzzzz

And there lies discourse.

 

[tyke1doe]

You are now trying to change the argument from why JG keeps his job to how he got it in the first place... two very different things. Who he knew had a great deal to do with how he got his job. I would never argue against that point and it doesn't support SAS's claim that black coaches don't get the same preferential treatment. BTW, black coaches are black folks. I don't know why you think that distinction makes a difference to the discussion at hand but okay.

I'm not changing the argument. It's not my argument. That's the argument Stephen A. makes. I went back and listened to his First Take segment.

Second, with respect to black coaches and black players, the distinction is the context in which Stephen A. frame the discussion, i.e., "And people wonder why black folks ..."

Let's discuss when SAS talks about perception. Perception, no matter what it based on is never truth in and of itself.

What does this even mean? Yes, perceptions CAN be true. I see a guy pointing a gun at me, I perceive he is a threat. He comes up to me and robs me. My perception of the situation was/is true.

Perception can deceive. That's one of the tricks of a magician. When the truth is not known one talks about what they perceive. When SAS speaks about perceptions based on history, let's not equate that with truth on the present. They are not the same thing.

Unfortunately, I can't flippantly compare magic to racism. Sorry.

Second, as I've stated above, yes, perceptions CAN BE true.

Third, even so, perceptions are something society has to deal with. You've heard the saying perceptions equal reality?

While it is true that I am only focusing on one portion of SAS's argument, you should not conclude I don't understand the totality of his points. I do understand his other points. I do not need to disagree with everything he says to disagree with the portion I am focused on.

But you're not considering the full context of his point, which leads you to an erroneous conclusion. If I said, for example, there are three reasons why I dislike Jason Garrett:
1. He has a .500 record
2. He runs a simplistic offense that is easily figured out and
3. He relies too heavily on Romo and can't develop backup quarterbacks

and you argued endlessly about his .500 record while citing other .500 coaches and criticizing me for not disliking them, you would be segmenting my argument from its context (which happens a lot in Internet discussions). And that would be dishonest because you're not considering the totality of my points which lead to my dislike of Garrett.

Similarly, you've chosen to focus on Stephen A.'s "black coaches don't receive preferential treatment" excluding it from the context that Jason Garrett was given preferential treatment in becoming the Cowboys "American's Team" coach when he didn't do anything to earn such a lofty position other than knowing the coach. Stephen A. then says that hasn't happened with a black coach - or alludes to it anyway - and then talks about how white coaches also ought to be upset about it.
The totality of his argument frames his preferential treatment comment.

Your original example did not contradict my statement. The boy established himself as a liar to the point that even when he told the truth it was perceived as a lie. In the end, perception got him face to face with a wolf with no help coming. That story has no applicable application of perpetual truth. I did not box myself in a corner. Your second example with the ice cream I give you credit for. But you are still not applying the perpetuity of truth correctly. Your example includes a quantum shift in time which enables truth to shift with it. If we take your example and dissect it into individual slices of time, then we see truth is perpetual within each slice. As long as the question about ice cream is always answered honestly, perpetuity of truth exists.

So I guess I need to ask you the same question Pilate asked Jesus: "What is truth?" How are you defining the "perpetuity of truth"?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. There is an "essence" of truth that is exclusive, but I'm not understanding how you're using "the perpetuity of truth" based on the topic of discussion. In essence, I don't really understand how you're applying it to this discussion.

As I've said previously, I believe truth is absolute, but I also believe truth can be relative, subjective. But it is necessary that the concept of absolute truth exists as a foundation; otherwise, subjective truth has no meaning or value. But, again, I don't understand how you're using the term. Maybe you can explain.

The Rooney Rule is yet another topic. I could go on another several paragraphs if I address it, so I will not other than to say I do not agree with it's application today.

Fair enough. However, I cited it because its existence support Stephen A.'s point about the lack of relationships many black assistant coaches and coordinators have with owners and Jason Garrett being able to benefit from his relationship with Jerry Jones, which allows him to keep his job when other coaches who've shown similar ineptitude have been canned - cough, cough Dave Camp, cough, cough Wade Phillips.

 

[khiladi]

The point remains that SAS was doing what he does (at times) - throwing out a non-argument to make his point. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has said Hardy was "to blame for the Cowboys atrocity". The hyperbole is ridiculous.

Was Hardy a major factor in the season of failure? We3 really don't know, but that it has been reported as such is accurate. Guess what...Romo getting hurt was an even bigger factor. Dex getting hurt was a big factor. A defense that couldn't generate TPs was a major factor. There were a lot of "major" factors. So why does he single what has been implied out Hardy? .It's just hype and hyperbole to make a point.

In the context of Garrett's incompetence, it's a very valid point. Many people were arguing the reason the team was losing was because Jerry started bringing back 'cancers' against Garrett's wishes and that was pretty much Hardy, because nobody else was brought in during that time. They even implied he was at fault for Dez's behavior, because these accusations were made in that context..

The most ironic thing is people using the excuse Garrett is a great coach because his team plays hard for him, and Hardy was pretty much the hardest working guy on defense whose motor never stopped..

Whatever absolves Garrett at the specific moment.. Stephen Smith is absolutely right in his original contention, which is Garrett doesn't deserve the HC job and it's because of special favoritism Jerry has to him that he is here..

 

[JoeKing]

I'm not changing the argument. It's not my argument. That's the argument Stephen A. makes. I went back and listened to his First Take segment.

But I'm not disputing that point so why bring it up?

Second, with respect to black coaches and black players, the distinction is the context in which Stephen A. frame the discussion, i.e., "And people wonder why black folks ..."

It's a distinction without a difference.

What does this even mean? Yes, perceptions CAN be true. I see a guy pointing a gun at me, I perceive he is a threat. He comes up to me and robs me. My perception of the situation was/is true.

You are missing the point. Of course perception can lead to truth but not in all cases. Perceiving something does not make it true.

Unfortunately, I can't flippantly compare magic to racism. Sorry.

Flippant? Do you really think that of me? If you know anything about magic you can not deny magicians use perception to deceive their audience. I only use this example to show you can not always trust what you perceive to be true. Perception was a word SAS used. I was not comparing magic to racism but you know that, you were just trying to deflect my point.

Second, as I've stated above, yes, perceptions CAN BE true.

And as I've already stated, perception is not true in all cases and more to the point, not in this case.

Third, even so, perceptions are something society has to deal with. You've heard the saying perceptions equal reality?

The perceptions need to be dealt with by those doing the perceiving rather than projecting those perceptions onto society as truth. Yes, I've heard the phrase "perception is reality". It was made popular by futurist, psychologist, and self-described agnostic mystic, Robert Anton Wilson. I do not subscribe to his psycho-babble. If you do, that's your problem and you will not make it mine.

But you're not considering the full context of his point, which leads you to an erroneous conclusion. If I said, for example, there are three reasons why I dislike Jason Garrett:
1. He has a .500 record
2. He runs a simplistic offense that is easily figured out and
3. He relies too heavily on Romo and can't develop backup quarterbacks

Stop right there. If we are going to start pretending we know what the other is thinking then we are going to get nowhere. You do not tell me what I am and am not considering. And you do not further exacerbate that by assuming it leads me to erroneous conclusions. Assuming you have knowledge of my thoughts will lead you down all kinds of false leads.

and you argued endlessly about his .500 record while citing other .500 coaches and criticizing me for not disliking them, you would be segmenting my argument from its context (which happens a lot in Internet discussions). And that would be dishonest because you're not considering the totality of my points which lead to my dislike of Garrett.

That's purely hypothetical and speculative.

Similarly, you've chosen to focus on Stephen A.'s "black coaches don't receive preferential treatment" excluding it from the context that Jason Garrett was given preferential treatment in becoming the Cowboys "American's Team" coach when he didn't do anything to earn such a lofty position other than knowing the coach. Stephen A. then says that hasn't happened with a black coach - or alludes to it anyway - and then talks about how white coaches also ought to be upset about it.
The totality of his argument frames his preferential treatment comment.

Who is to say when a coaching job is deserved or earned? Not the fans... that excludes you and me and SAS. I'm not advocating for JG's job security. I'm arguing against SAS thinking he or anyone else but the Cowboys FO, can determine the standard that qualifies a person for that job. White, black, or purple has nothing to do with it.

So I guess I need to ask you the same question Pilate asked Jesus: "What is truth?" How are you defining the "perpetuity of truth"?

In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:

• Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism – an ends-vs.-means-type approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.
• Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable. A group of people can get together and form a conspiracy based on a set of falsehoods where they all agree to tell the same false story, but it does not make their presentation true.
• Truth is not what makes people feel good. Unfortunately, bad news can be true.
• Truth is not what the majority says is true. Fifty-one percent of a group can reach a wrong conclusion.
• Truth is not what is comprehensive. A lengthy, detailed presentation can still result in a false conclusion.
• Truth is not defined by what is intended. Good intentions can still be wrong.
• Truth is not how we know; truth is what we know.
• Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie believed is still a lie.
• Truth is not what is publicly proved. A truth can be privately known (for example, the location of buried treasure).

The Greek word for “truth” is aletheia, which literally means to “un-hide” or “hiding nothing.” It conveys the thought that truth is always there, always open and available for all to see... in perpetuity.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. There is an "essence" of truth that is exclusive, but I'm not understanding how you're using "the perpetuity of truth" based on the topic of discussion. In essence, I don't really understand how you're applying it to this discussion.

I am using it in this discussion to attach a characteristic that the word "perception" lacks. Perception is a word SAS introduced to the discussion as if it conveys a quality of truth. It does not. Perception is a theory, a guess, a fill-in-the-hole thought that does not always lead to the truth.

As I've said previously, I believe truth is absolute, but I also believe truth can be relative, subjective. But it is necessary that the concept of absolute truth exists as a foundation; otherwise, subjective truth has no meaning or value. But, again, I don't understand how you're using the term. Maybe you can explain.

I think I've done that above.

Fair enough. However, I cited it because its existence support Stephen A.'s point about the lack of relationships many black assistant coaches and coordinators have with owners and Jason Garrett being able to benefit from his relationship with Jerry Jones, which allows him to keep his job when other coaches who've shown similar ineptitude have been canned - cough, cough Dave Camp, cough, cough Wade Phillips.

The Rooney rule was conceived with good intentions but ineptly put in place. It is too easily circumvented, by inviting minority candidates to interview for a job they have no real chance of being considered for if the decision makers have no intention of doing so. It is only a box checking exercise.

I appreciate you being extremely patient and listening to my points and hope with the best of intentions that we can communicate our opinions and at least come to some reasonable resolution. Communication is a two way street. When you post, I listen(read), I do my best to understand and consider your points and then weigh that with what I know to be true. Then I try to reply with my weighed response or counterpoint. I could be wrong but, I hope you are going through that same process.

You seem to be a good guy and I am not out to make enemies. In the interest of us understanding each other I think maybe if we understood where each other is coming from, we could just put our cards on the table and have a more honest back and forth conversation. If you are willing to agree to that, then I would be willing to start us off. Agreed?

 

[erod]

Whatever you say.

He earns a lot of money to say stupidity and dumb people pay attention.

To me, that is smart.

The content of what comes out of his mouth is irrelevant if it gets the job done.

I guess if he doesn't have a shred of pride, integrity, or morality, then that would be true.