The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[tideh20heel]

I think he won't. He is set into thinking he is right and won't budge even though that the evidence in his argument makes no sense. He is just clouded by the media mind machine and brainwashed into thinking that they made the right call - which they didn't.

He is just arguing on the wrong side and won't admit it. Its just human nature. I suggest you don't get worked up over it. But its cool you try and set him straight and I wish you luck though. I know where your coming from and Im with you here.....

He is hopeless dude save your breath. No independent thought exists he simply parrots his preferred "authority"

 

[ConstantReboot]

He is hopeless dude save your breath. No independent thought exists he simply parrots his preferred "authority"

Yes I know dude. I feel so sorry for him. I really do.

 

[DogFace]

Yes I know dude. I feel so sorry for him. I really do.

Most of us know these kinds of people. It is our job to help them.

 

[DogFace]

Who determines right or wrong? The authorities that make the decision.
Otherwise, we're all just sharing opinions. And what makes your opinion correct?

See, this is the distinction between right and wrong and opinion. When you're dealing with right and wrong, it has to be backed up with authority, particularly an authority that has the power to enforce right and wrong.

You don't have that power. I don't have that power. The refs have that power, and the league has that power.

That's the distinguishing difference.

It's pretty clear that an Internet forum is expressing ones opinion.
You are making my opinion look correct by avoiding the the fact that in one play the ref said the fall wasn't part of the catch and in the other the three steps followed by switching the ball into one hand and lunging was part of the catch.
That is the point of the discussion the refs or authority, as you like to call them, are contradicting their own statements and thus seem incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.
Your constant attempt at changing the subject is why I think you are likely a poor kid ump. Your inablity to stay focused on the subject at hand is telling. It could likely lead to poor judgement from an inability to basic concepts in a discussion and possibly rules.

As for your apparent fascination and glorification of authority, look up founding fathers vs The King.
This is possibly the greatest example of what happens when authority is challenged. It's healthy and needed in dealing with any body that makes rules.

 

[tyke1doe]

LOL please comprehend - can you at least do that? I did not blame the media and never said once it was their fault. I said they were wrong and I did not need to believe them. That my friend is not blaming the media. Its the ability for me to judge for myself.

Stop it with your diversion tactics. Like I said its okay to believe the media as if its real. Nothing wrong with that. But I feel sorry that its your basis for reality in life.

Oh, I comprehend quite well, thank you. You just don't understand the principles behind your comments. You want to say something then comport reality to fit what you say rather than what is really meant by your statement.

When you say that the media have brainwashed me, you ARE blaming the media. You don't have to say, "I blame the media." You did so by using the media as a source for a particular influence, namely brainwashing.

Second, you didn't merely say you don't believe them. You said I was brainwashed. Are you paying attention to what you actually say? Maybe that's part of your problem. You're rambling and ranting and aren't actually paying attention to what you're saying.

Third, you're complaining about my diversionary tactics? You're the one who branched off into a diatribe on the media. I never said anything about media. And what's so funny about this conversation is that you rely on the media too, unless you attend all of the Cowboys games. You have to watch games via the media.

Fourth, no, you don't feel sorry that is the basis for my reality. Otherwise, you wouldn't be harping on it. How we got to tis point is mystifying to me. I'm taling about the call, and you're talking about the media.

 

[tyke1doe]

You cant be all that Bad, your a Cowboys fan, right?

Look, I don't have a problem with disagreement. I'm not upset that you feel the refs screwed the Cowboys. But if you're going to challenge me, question my intelligence, call me brainwashed, or get upset because I simply don't agree, then don't get upset when I retort and express myself in a way that's in keeping with who I am.

I was having a normal, civil conversation with Carharris. He asked questions, and I responded. But I guess since I didn't back down, the tenor and tone changed. I didn't start it. But I'm not going to back down either. If that bothers people, so be it.

But I'd rather we agree to disagree. We have more in common than we have differences. And being a Cowboys fan and wanting to see them win a Super Bowl is what we both can agree on.

So peace to you, JoeBoBBY. And if I offended you, I apologize.

 

[tyke1doe]

It's pretty clear that an Internet forum is expressing ones opinion.

Never said it wasn't.

You are making my opinion look correct by avoiding the the fact that in one play the ref said the fall wasn't part of the catch and in the other the three steps followed by switching the ball into one hand and lunging was part of the catch.

I'm making your opinion correct? I'm only of one opinion, and that is I can see why the refs called Dez's catch a non-catch. I don't have to look at one single play that seems to contradict that. I merely have to look at the Dez play, read the rules and see why they made the call the way they did. If they had called the play in Dez's favor, ultimately, I would have been happy like any other Cowboys fan.
I really don't understand what your opinion is, really, other than you think the Dez play was the wrong call. Okay, fine. I disagree.

That is the point of the discussion the refs or authority, as you like to call them, are contradicting their own statements and thus seem incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.

You say seem. Even you can't be certain.

Your constant attempt at changing the subject is why I think you are likely a poor kid ump.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? That's exactly what you committed here. But what you think isn't really important. That lies out of your realm of understanding and knowledge. You merely cite it because you're upset and need to lash out, and you lash out by getting personal in an area that really isn't connected to this discussion, at least not the way you present it.

Your inablity to stay focused on the subject at hand is telling. It could likely lead to poor judgement from an inability to basic concepts in a discussion and possibly rules.

Okay, whatever you say. You seem so bothered by me explaining why I don't think the refs are being biased. And yet, here you are arguing with me. If my judgment is poor, what does it say about your judgment that you're still here arguing with me?

As for your apparent fascination and glorification of authority, look up founding fathers vs The King.
This is possibly the greatest example of what happens when authority is challenged. It's healthy and needed in dealing with any body that makes rules.

And did the Founding Fathers abandon authority? Did they become anarchists? No. They reestablished an authority of a different system. You ALWAYS have to have authority because without it you have anarchy and opinions governing society.

So, how does my appeal to authority work in this case? The NFL (an authority) establishes the rules; the refs (an authority) enforce and interpret those rules. They are the ultimate authorities. What they say is law because they have the power to move beyond mere opinion and impact, influence and interpret issues on the field. What you say and what I say really don't matter because we don't have the authority to directly dictate what occurs on the field.

Now, we can appeal to authority in the right way, and we can get rules changed if we reached those in authority who can affect those changes. But there will always be an authority source. I mean they're not going to let you call down to the field, give your opinion that Dez's catch should have been upheld as a catch and go with that. Why, that would make you the authority.

 

[DogFace]

Never said it wasn't.



I'm making your opinion correct? I'm only of one opinion, and that is I can see why the refs called Dez's catch a non-catch. I don't have to look at one single play that seems to contradict that. I merely have to look at the Dez play, read the rules and see why they made the call the way they did. If they had called the play in Dez's favor, ultimately, I would have been happy like any other Cowboys fan.
I really don't understand what your opinion is, really, other than you think the Dez play was the wrong call. Okay, fine. I disagree.



You say seem. Even you can't be certain.



Do you know what a non-sequitur is? That's exactly what you committed here. But what you think isn't really important. That lies out of your realm of understanding and knowledge. You merely cite it because you're upset and need to lash out, and you lash out by getting personal in an area that really isn't connected to this discussion, at least not the way you present it.



Okay, whatever you say. You seem so bothered by me explaining why I don't think the refs are being biased. And yet, here you are arguing with me. If my judgment is poor, what does it say about your judgment that you're still here arguing with me?



And did the Founding Fathers abandon authority? Did they become anarchists? No. They reestablished an authority of a different system. You ALWAYS have to have authority because without it you have anarchy and opinions governing society.

So, how does my appeal to authority work in this case? The NFL (an authority) establishes the rules; the refs (an authority) enforce and interpret those rules. They are the ultimate authorities. What they say is law because they have the power to move beyond mere opinion and impact, influence and interpret issues on the field. What you say and what I say really don't matter because we don't have the authority to directly dictate what occurs on the field.

Now, we can appeal to authority in the right way, and we can get rules changed if we reached those in authority who can affect those changes. But there will always be an authority source. I mean they're not going to let you call down to the field, give your opinion that Dez's catch should have been upheld as a catch and go with that. Why, that would make you the authority.

I knew you couldn't debate the play. It's not really debatable. How many steps would it take to make the dive not part of the "catch"? In The Bengals play that you can't watch(though I'm sure you have)because your work wisely censors what they let you watch he took zero steps. Just immediately fell. Yet the fall wasn't part of the catch.
The Dez play was called correctly by the authority figure 10 feet from the play then overturned by a person in New York who has never been a field ref.
Evidence has been presented that show the inconsistancy.
I'm right you're wrong. I just wanted you to admit it.
Thank you. Your inablity to answer is all I need.

 

[DogFace]

Never said it wasn't.



I'm making your opinion correct? I'm only of one opinion, and that is I can see why the refs called Dez's catch a non-catch. I don't have to look at one single play that seems to contradict that. I merely have to look at the Dez play, read the rules and see why they made the call the way they did. If they had called the play in Dez's favor, ultimately, I would have been happy like any other Cowboys fan.
I really don't understand what your opinion is, really, other than you think the Dez play was the wrong call. Okay, fine. I disagree.



You say seem. Even you can't be certain.



Do you know what a non-sequitur is? That's exactly what you committed here. But what you think isn't really important. That lies out of your realm of understanding and knowledge. You merely cite it because you're upset and need to lash out, and you lash out by getting personal in an area that really isn't connected to this discussion, at least not the way you present it.



Okay, whatever you say. You seem so bothered by me explaining why I don't think the refs are being biased. And yet, here you are arguing with me. If my judgment is poor, what does it say about your judgment that you're still here arguing with me?



And did the Founding Fathers abandon authority? Did they become anarchists? No. They reestablished an authority of a different system. You ALWAYS have to have authority because without it you have anarchy and opinions governing society.

So, how does my appeal to authority work in this case? The NFL (an authority) establishes the rules; the refs (an authority) enforce and interpret those rules. They are the ultimate authorities. What they say is law because they have the power to move beyond mere opinion and impact, influence and interpret issues on the field. What you say and what I say really don't matter because we don't have the authority to directly dictate what occurs on the field.

Now, we can appeal to authority in the right way, and we can get rules changed if we reached those in authority who can affect those changes. But there will always be an authority source. I mean they're not going to let you call down to the field, give your opinion that Dez's catch should have been upheld as a catch and go with that. Why, that would make you the authority.

If you really feel you're correct, even after my teachings, go debate it in the Dean Blandino thread. Plenty of better teachers in there.

 

[tyke1doe]

I knew you couldn't debate the play. It's not really debatable. How many steps would it take to make the dive not part of the "catch"? In The Bengals play that you can't watch(though I'm sure you have)because your work wisely censors what they let you watch he took zero steps. Just immediately fell. Yet the fall wasn't part of the catch.
The Dez play was called correctly by the authority figure 10 feet from the play then overturned by a person in New York who has never been a field ref.
Evidence has been presented that show the inconsistancy.
I'm right you're wrong. I just wanted you to admit it.
Thank you. Your inablity to answer is all I need.

So that's what this is about?

As I said, it doesn't matter whether you believe you're right or I believe I'm right. The play was called a no-catch by the authorities that be. And nothing we think is going to change that. If somehow you feel your proclamation that you're right assuages your anger over the call, have at it.

 

[tyke1doe]

If you really feel you're correct, even after my teachings, go debate it in the Dean Blandino thread. Plenty of better teachers in there.

Why thank you for your permission. But why would I need "better teachers"? You're the one proclaiming that you're right. If you're right, why would I need further convincing? Unless you're not satisfied with your own explanation?

 

[DogFace]

So that's what this is about?

As I said, it doesn't matter whether you believe you're right or I believe I'm right. The play was called a no-catch by the authorities that be. And nothing we think is going to change that. If somehow you feel your proclamation that you're right assuages your anger over the call, have at it.

Saying I'm right means I'm angry about it? That's interesting.

 

[DogFace]

Why thank you for your permission. But why would I need "better teachers"? You're the one proclaiming that you're right. If you're right, why would I need further convincing? Unless you're not satisfied with your own explanation?

You're welcome!!!

 

[tyke1doe]

Saying I'm right means I'm angry about it? That's interesting.

Yeah, you are angry about the call. You've displayed as much. Anger is an emotion correlated to morality. Why do people get angry? For the most part, it's because they think they've been wronged. People generally don't get angry when people treat them right.

 

[DogFace]

Why thank you for your permission. But why would I need "better teachers"? You're the one proclaiming that you're right. If you're right, why would I need further convincing? Unless you're not satisfied with your own explanation?

Classic avoidance.

 

[tyke1doe]

Classic avoidance.

Translation: Tyke1doe won't do what I say. I can't control him. Wait, let me use psychology on him and manipulate him into doing what I want him to do. Can you say: T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T?

 

[DogFace]

Yeah, you are angry about the call. You've displayed as much. Anger is an emotion correlated to morality. Why do people get angry? For the most part, it's because they think they've been wronged. People generally don't get angry when people treat them right.

Avoid the facts. They can't be debated so you play this tired game that has likely made you unimportant and unpopular. It's no one else's fault or flaw. It's yours

 

[DogFace]

Translation: Tyke1doe won't do what I say. I can't control him. Wait, let me use psychology on him and manipulate him into doing what I want him to do. Can you say: T-R-A-N-S-P-A-R-E-N-T?

No. You said you would watch it and compare dear. You can't so you do this. Sad. But I just want to drill in your head. I am better.

 

[tyke1doe]

Avoid the facts. They can't be debated so you play this tired game that has likely made you unimportant and unpopular. It's no one else's fault or flaw. It's yours

Hey, it takes two to play games. And since you're still playing, you don't seem to be tired. See, I love it when they contradict themselves.
Me and you and you and me.

 

[tyke1doe]

No. You said you would watch it and compare dear. You can't so you do this. Sad. But I just want to drill in your head. I am better.

I know you want to drill it home. Usually, when that happens it's because the driller needs to convince himself.
But it's sort of pathetic, really. We're at a point in this conversation where you're now declaring you're "better." Ah, Internet victories do wonders for the esteem.