Talkin Cowboys or The Break?

[Idgit]

SMH, what a blathering disaster.

Having "evidence" not sufficient to qualify as proof is to not have evidence at all.

If it were, there'd be no concept of 'insufficient evidence.' Take the time to think it through a bit more. Or ask one of your SLO friends for a hand with it. There are a lot of examples of things that there is some evidence of but which aren't necessarily provable.

 

[Gameover]

Rat poison

You couldn't pay me to listen to bums like Eastman and Broaddus

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

If it were, there'd be no concept of 'insufficient evidence.' Take the time to think it through a bit more. Or ask one of your SLO friends for a hand with it. There are a lot of examples of things that there is some evidence of but which aren't necessarily provable.

Looooooool, more brilliance from the GED crowd!

"Insufficient evidence" is exactly that: Not. Sufficient. Evidence.

In other words, you haven't provided enough support/proof/evidence to validate your claim or assertion.

Some folks are so far back in the race they think they're winning. You got it champ!

 

[gmoney112]

Looooooool, more brilliance from the GED crowd!

"Insufficient evidence" is exactly that: Not. Sufficient. Evidence.

In other words, you haven't provided enough support/proof/evidence to validate your claim or assertion.

Some folks are so far back in the race they think they're winning.

Say wha? Nuh uh.

This ain't the Supreme Court. The standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" up in hurr.

That's like asking for a citation to an eyewitness testimony.

And fo' the record, Stern is pretty mediocre. It's at least evident that she probably puts in more effort than any of them, probably exponentially more than Broaddus, but she still isn't what i'd consider "good". Could do better, could do worse.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Say wha? Nuh uh.

This ain't the Supreme Court. The standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" up in hurr.

That's like asking for a citation to an eyewitness testimony.

And fo' the record, Stern is pretty mediocre. It's at least evident that she probably puts in more effort than any of them, probably exponentially more than Broaddus, but she still isn't what i'd consider "good". Could do better, could do worse.

I wouldn't consider her "good" either, but I also don't think she's so bad that she doesn't deserve a contributing spot on a podcast panel, lol.

To catch you up, idgit is claiming Taylor is being "fed" questions by others on the team. To support that claim he's provided the following: [nothing]

Now, in pure comedic fashion, he thinks appealing to "insufficient evidence" is an out for him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's a difference between believing something you can't prove and having evidence of something you believe despite it not being sufficient to qualify as proof.

For example, when a new personality can't describe any aspect of the game correctly, stumbles over her words repeatedly, and then, once or twice a show answers a soft-pitch technical football question correctly with a vocal pattern that suggests she's very likely reading from her notes and with an answer that has the syntax wrong with the exception of the phrases that are obviously written explicitly on the notes and which are more sophisticated than anything else she's said all day....is that proof? No. Is it enough give a reasonable person suspicion that she's been fed an answer? In my opinion, it completely and obviously is. At the same time, I can understand somebody thinking it's not--especially in the context of trying to win a debate on a football forum. Either way, it's circumstantial evidence, at best.

So I"m saying I believe she was spoonfed answers early on based entirely off of anecdotal observations. I believe they did it to cover for a football knowledge gap that was significant. And I believe she's worked hard to close that gap. Would I have hired her at the start? Nope. Do I mind a person getting a break and working hard to justify the faith the show showed her? Nope. I respect it, in fact. But I still think Brian spoonfed here.

(Lol, autocorrect changed 'spoonfed' to 'spooned.' Gross).

Who is to say she didn't do the research herself and stumbled over the new material in her notes?

That is just as plausible as is something you or I have no even considered.

Why does it have to be that the man fed her the info? Why does it have to be Broaddus? Why cannot it be Nick, Derek, or someone else?

Frankly you are making a ton of assumptions without any basis whatsoever.

 

[Idgit]

Looooooool, more brilliance from the GED crowd!

"Insufficient evidence" is exactly that: Not. Sufficient. Evidence.

In other words, you haven't provided enough support/proof/evidence to validate your claim or assertion.

Some folks are so far back in the race they think they're winning. You got it champ!

Proof is conclusive, evidence is not necessarily conclusive. The two aren't the same. You're making the mistake of assuming they are.

But hey, least you spelled GED right.

 

[Idgit]

Who is to say she didn't do the research herself and stumbled over the new material in her notes?

That is just as plausible as is something you or I have no even considered.

Why does it have to be that the man fed her the info? Why does it have to be Broaddus? Why cannot it be Nick, Derek, or someone else?

Frankly you are making a ton of assumptions without any basis whatsoever.

I don't think I've suggested at any point that I'm not making assumptions, have I? We're talking about the bases for our personal opinions re talk show hosts here.

We can disagree on the quality of the basis for my assumptions. It's not a battlefield I really care to die on. I just know I considered the attempts to prop her up obvious and cringeworthy long before I entered the thread, and I don't see the same cues that drive those assumptions happening so much anymore.

The simplest explanation is that the colleagues with more experience were propping her, and they don't need to do much anymore. If that's how it went down, or if there's another explanation for her improvement, it doesn't matter all that much to me. If I've made some false assumptions along the way, I'm happy to be proven wrong or to just live with them.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Proof is conclusive, evidence is not necessarily conclusive. The two aren't the same. You're making the mistake of assuming they are.

But hey, least you spelled GED right.

Seriously, you are my muse. You simply exist for me to embarrass you.

Let me help educate you.

Proof and evidence are simply interchangeable synonyms for the same thing. Neither proof or evidence is conclusive or self-evident. If someone says "I have evidence of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the proof (showing you meatball)" they haven't proven anything conclusive.

In terms of your assertion Taylor is being "fed" lines, you have neither a shred of evidence or proof.

You're making the mistake of being intellectually dishonest (no, not you?) and not admitting when you're wrong. Take it as a sign that even your idol Fuzzy is flatly calling you out on the same exact point.

Take the "L" and call it a night.

 

[Idgit]

Seriously, you are my muse. You simply exist for me to embarrass you.

Let me help educate you.

Proof and evidence are simply interchangeable synonyms for the same thing. Neither proof or evidence is conclusive or self-evident. If someone says "I have evidence of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the proof (showing you meatball)" they haven't proven anything conclusive.

In terms of your assertion Taylor is being "fed" lines, you have neither a shred of evidence or proof.

You're making the mistake of being intellectually dishonest (no, not you?) and not admitting when you're wrong. Take it as a sign that even your idol Fuzzy is flatly calling you out on the same exact point.

Take the "L" and call it a night.

You're misusing the word 'proof' and confusing it with evidence and then demonstrating your confusion in your own example. A meatball would (maybe) be evidence of a spaghetti monster on your roof, but not proof. It can as easily be evidence that your neighbor throws meatballs. The fact that people sometimes make the mistake of using the words interchangeably when they are not, in fact, interchangeable does not make your argument. The fact that you're doing it while pretending to 'educate' me is just embarrassing for you.

This can be cleared up with a simple google search if you care to do it.

As for the Taylor stuff, I already addressed your point there with Fuzzy, who argued your side better, too. So I won't repeat it.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You're misusing the word 'proof' and confusing it with evidence and then demonstrating your confusion in your own example. A meatball would (maybe) be evidence of a spaghetti monster on your roof, but not proof. It can as easily be evidence that your neighbor throws meatballs. The fact that people sometimes make the mistake of using the words interchangeably when they are not, in fact, interchangeable does not make your argument. The fact that you're doing it while pretending to 'educate' me is just embarrassing for you.

This can be cleared up with a simple google search if you care to do it.

As for the Taylor stuff, I already addressed your point there with Fuzzy, who argued your side better, too. So I won't repeat it.

Ah, now the classic idgit obfuscation in hopes of appearing to save face.

Let's try to educate you again:

"I have evidence of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the proof (showing you the meatball)."
"I have proof of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the evidence (showing you the meatball)."

They are both subjective and interchangeable terms that have no objective meaning without further substantiation; neither is conclusive or self-evident. I know I'm using terms that may be confusing to you; don't be afraid to ask questions; I'll help you.

You made a bogus claim that Taylor was being "fed" lines and supported that assertion with neither evidence or proof. Rather, you made an unsubstantiated claim i.e. made something up and thought your speculating could pass as some sort of evidence. It doesn't.

Now in predictable fashion you've provided yourself an out ("If I've made some false assumptions along the way [...] I'm happy to just live with them"), so go do that.

 

[Idgit]

Ah, now the classic idgit obfuscation in hopes of appearing to save face.

Let's try to educate you again:

"I have evidence of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the proof (showing you the meatball)."
"I have proof of a spaghetti monster living on top of my roof, here's the evidence (showing you the meatball)."

They are both subjective and interchangeable terms that have no objective meaning without further substantiation; neither is conclusive or self-evident. I know I'm using terms that may be confusing to you; don't be afraid to ask questions; I'll help you.

You made a bogus claim that Taylor was being "fed" lines and supported that assertion with neither evidence or proof. Rather, you made an unsubstantiated claim i.e. made something up and thought your speculating could pass as some sort of evidence. It doesn't.

Now in predictable fashion you've provided yourself an out ("If I've made some false assumptions along the way [...] I'm happy to just live with them"), so go do that.

You simply don't understand what the words mean, and that's fine. But repeating your mistake over and over again is never going to make the words change their meaning. The fact that you haven't bothered to look them up to see that you're wrong is evidence of something, but I won't say what here, because of our guidelines.

Have a great day, though. Enjoy the victory Monday.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You simply don't understand what the words mean, and that's fine. But repeating your mistake over and over again is never going to make the words change their meaning. The fact that you haven't bothered to look them up to see that you're wrong is evidence of something, but I won't say what here, because of our guidelines.

Have a great day, though. Enjoy the victory Monday.

Lol, ah classic. And you know exactly what you are, but I'm sure you made peace with that a long time ago. Stay true to yourself.

 

[Philmonroe]

Unfair bias is not a reason? Even if you do not agree try having some empathy and understand that others see that as the reason.

And lets be clear here. I do not pick sides. I have supported Nate when people made fun of the way he talks. I have supported Bosa when people said he was unathletic. Male, female, white, black, puerto rican or haitian. All deserve equal treatment.

I don't like unfair bias in any form.

I do have empathy but not you or anybody else going to flip empathy to mean I have to agree with you or else either. If you didn't pick sides you'd be right in here speaking about those who said stuff about Nate or the others right along with Taylor. When I don't see that from you its hard since I don't follow anybody posting history to conclude you do what you say. If you do great but that isn't really showing in this thread. Its lets help "helpless" Taylor while nobody is saying anything about anybody else that has been talked about. If you can't see that well I don't know what to tell you. That's why its hard for me to believe you don't like unfair bias when your showing it in this thread by not talking about all the things people have said negatively. Maybe you don't like unfair bias that doesn't benefit you and or your pov.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do have empathy but not you or anybody else going to flip empathy to mean I have to agree with you or else either. If you didn't pick sides you'd be right in here speaking about those who said stuff about Nate or the others right along with Taylor. When I don't see that from you its hard since I don't follow anybody posting history to conclude you do what you say. If you do great but that isn't really showing in this thread. Its lets help "helpless" Taylor while nobody is saying anything about anybody else that has been talked about. If you can't see that well I don't know what to tell you. That's why its hard for me to believe you don't like unfair bias when your showing it in this thread by not talking about all the things people have said negatively. Maybe you don't like unfair bias that doesn't benefit you and or your pov.

Please in your own words explain how Nate has been a victim of unfair bias in how he was criticized.

I expect you will handle it like proving your assertions or answering the examples I gave.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

 

[Philmonroe]

Please in your own words explain how Nate has been a victim of unfair bias in how he was criticized.

I expect you will handle it like proving your assertions or answering the examples I gave.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

I keep telling you do it yourself. Spare me the show me when you didn't need to be shown the Taylor stuff cause you were looking for it. Do the same here. Also what's with you people and these Instagram quotes. Y'all can't say something that sounds cool in your own words and or y'all want to be thought of more enlightend? Some of y'all internet people I run into on here y'all make me lol.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I keep telling you do it yourself. Spare me the show me when you didn't need to be shown the Taylor stuff cause you were looking for it. Do the same here. Also what's with you people and these Instagram quotes. Y'all can't say something that sounds cool in your own words and or y'all want to be thought of more enlightend? Some of y'all internet people I run into on here y'all make me lol.

What instagram quotes? You are delusional.

And I already presented my argument. You have avoided it.

As for enlightenment, that is interesting from someone who seems to have difficulty looking beyond the box of one's own ego.

 

[revospeed]

Speaking of The Break, does anyone else notice that Broaddus likes to creep on 20-something's on twitter? My timeline is now filled with mirror and cleavage selfies from 19-27 year olds with "Bryan Broaddus liked this" above it. Dude seems thirsty. That, combined with the "I'll punish you" comment to Taylor Stern a few days ago makes me look at him in a different light.

 

[SportsGuru80]

I like Talkin' Cowboys because of Nate Newton LOL!

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Speaking of The Break, does anyone else notice that Broaddus likes to creep on 20-something's on twitter? My timeline is now filled with mirror and cleavage selfies from 19-27 year olds with "Bryan Broaddus liked this" above it. Dude seems thirsty. That, combined with the "I'll punish you" comment to Taylor Stern a few days ago makes me look at him in a different light.