Knock comments like these (and others you’ve made in this thread) off. They are coming dangerously close to looking like trying purposefully to get a rise out of people.
Nm. Reconsidered post moderator intervention.
Just for shits and grins, I checked out the Packer page. They got the bad stuff (gambling and college recruiting), but they include so much other stuff it’s laughable. They give the Packers 3 cheating points (how funny is that, that they have to make up their own system so the Pats don’t look bad, rather than relying on actual discipline done by the NFL) for something they themselves admit: “is within the rules as long as players use their own monies, the amounts are not exorbitant, and the payments are not for illegal hits” and “Greg Aiello, an NFL spokesman, said there was nothing wrong with what White did,”.
That site is worth a healthy chuckle, not only for the rampant homerism, but the cute way they pretend they’re somehow being objective. It’s like reading ElvisL!ves posts if they were written by FoxNews.
Regarding the Watergate break-ins, the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum said:
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/themuseum/exhibits/oldwatergatetour.php
This is the only thing I’ve ever seen that comes close to the homer denialism rampant on the “Everyone else cheats, Patriots don’t” site. Pitiful, both of them.
What “Patriots don’t” do you see? The site has them right in the middle of the pack.
The issue is hypocrisy and selectivity. Is that not clear?
Yeah. Perfectly average. A dispassionate empirical analysis reveals that they are no better or worse than the league as a whole. Which is remarkable when you consider that Goodell has it out for them. A dispassionate analysis reveals that he is at heart a Jet and sends his winged minions out to slander Tom Brady. Empirically speaking.
It’s crystal.
Dude, that site is more partisan than the Da Bears sketch where they predicted that a team of mini Bears would beat the Giants 31 to 7. Asking people to counter that with a factual rebuttal is ridiculous.
You’ve already established that no, you don’t have anything else of a factual nature to offer, and furthermore, you have no interest in exploring the subject on a factual basis. No need to keep emphasizing it; it really doesn’t help you.
Just because it metaphorically needs to be said… You gotta little poop there onyour hands. It stinks and you should be embarrassed for it.
I will continue to emphasize that your linked site is not itself of a factual nature by any stretch of the imagination. If I need to actually keep quoting from it to demonstrate this point, I will.
“Textgate” only got 1.5 cameras on the cheat scale. The Jaguars are also not very good at cheating, and they also suck at football. The best instance of cheating that is exclusive to the Jaguars is that they once painted the arrows at yard markers away from the closest end zone.
Empirically, texting is 3 times worse than snowplowing a spot for your team’s placekicker.
For which he was given the same suspension as Brady.
(Not offered as any indication of equivalence, but rather as a comment on the generally arbitrary and capricious nature of the NFL discipline system.)
Brady has retainedthe lawyer best known for helping the NFL embarrass itself.
It’s only beginning.
And as a side note, if Brady is suspended for 4 games the Pats will save more money than the million dollar fine. Just shows how well thought out this NFL plan is.
No, some actual refutation using actual facts, something a bit more solid than “Yeah, Steelers! Booh, Pats!” would do it. If you ever come up with something, do please let us know, will you?
The problem with the site is not the listing of incidents, it’s the author’s subjective ranking of the severity of incidents. Which is not subject to factual rebuttal.
I suspect you already know that.
That does not make it “not itself of a factual nature”.
I suspect you already know that.
No, it just makes it irrelevant.
No, it means it’s a source of data. You’re free to apply your own weighting criteria instead of theirs, of course, but our friend here won’t do that; but only denounce a team that Steelers fans have always hated.
Okay. The Mini-bears could not beat the Giants 42 to 7, because 14 inch tall people could not compete with full sized men in a game favoring strength, speed, height and ups.