| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Was it relevant? |
| Yes. |
|
77% |
[ 167 ] |
| No. |
|
22% |
[ 48 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 215 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bizell
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 953
Location: ocala, fl
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| texans_uk wrote: | Hold the phone!
This topic is still going?! |
absolutely! this thread is comedic gold.
_________________
sig by sucka steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
carnageehw
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keleth
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2597
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Keleth wrote: | | carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.
"no one will ever know" how big an advantage it was? Believing cheating helped a team win is no less 'tinfoil' than believing they wont those trophies 'because of the tuck rule'... can we wear matching tinfoil hats now?
Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, in this instance - the crime was worse than the coverup. You see, everything was a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy' until it was fact... Quiz Show was a conspiracy until it wasnt.... Pete Rose's gambling was a conspiracy until it wasnt, the Black Sox were a conspiracy until it wasnt, Jose Conseco steroids accusations were a conspiracy until he wasnt, 2002 winter olympics ice skating was a 'conspiracy' until it wasnt. In light of the evidence (destruction of the tapes, Matt Walsh's claims to have super bowl walkthrough tapes until he lawyered up and went silent) its not that hard to draw lines of Goodell circling the wagons...
I for one certainly believe cheating helped the Pats more than the tuck rule... but I guess that where we diverge.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YlionsY
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 14226
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
30 pages.
No matter what happens this will always been an argument or asterisk that is brought up in discussion.
_________________
AAL: DeAndre Levy 31 Tackles
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| YlionsY wrote: | 30 pages.
No matter what happens this will always been an argument or asterisk that is brought up in discussion. |
Precisely...
You dont get to cheat, get caught red-handed, get fined the LARGEST FINE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SPORTS – and pretend like it meant nothing.
Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
be WARE94
Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 1264
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | YlionsY wrote: | 30 pages.
No matter what happens this will always been an argument or asterisk that is brought up in discussion. |
Precisely...
You dont get to cheat, get caught red-handed, get fined the LARGEST FINE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SPORTS – and pretend like it meant nothing.
Sorry. |
/thread and the fact that SOME key word some patriot fans try to bring it up and downplay shows that it meant something.....the people who believe that era of dominance by the patriots is tainted.....not saying i'm one of them.....well you AREN'T going to change there mind......especially when you aren't bring ANY new arguments/evidence to the table to state your case.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.
"no one will ever know" how big an advantage it was? Believing cheating helped a team win is no less 'tinfoil' than believing they wont those trophies 'because of the tuck rule'... can we wear matching tinfoil hats now?
Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, in this instance - the crime was worse than the coverup. You see, everything was a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy' until it was fact... Quiz Show was a conspiracy until it wasnt.... Pete Rose's gambling was a conspiracy until it wasnt, the Black Sox were a conspiracy until it wasnt, Jose Conseco steroids accusations were a conspiracy until he wasnt, 2002 winter olympics ice skating was a 'conspiracy' until it wasnt. In light of the evidence (destruction of the tapes, Matt Walsh's claims to have super bowl walkthrough tapes until he lawyered up and went silent) its not that hard to draw lines of Goodell circling the wagons...
I for one certainly believe cheating helped the Pats more than the tuck rule... but I guess that where we diverge.... |
Believing what the Pats did gave them some sort of advantage isnt a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing the tapes were burned in some grand coverup is a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing Goodells punishment, in some way, indicates further transgressions involving SB wins and such is a tinhat conspiracy theory.
But yeah, let me get one thing straight. Some conspiracy theories were actually justified. Therefore this conspiracy theory (and any other) deserves merit?
Would lllllove to hear your thoughts on 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination. Unfortunately we cant discuss those topics.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.
"no one will ever know" how big an advantage it was? Believing cheating helped a team win is no less 'tinfoil' than believing they wont those trophies 'because of the tuck rule'... can we wear matching tinfoil hats now?
Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, in this instance - the crime was worse than the coverup. You see, everything was a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy' until it was fact... Quiz Show was a conspiracy until it wasnt.... Pete Rose's gambling was a conspiracy until it wasnt, the Black Sox were a conspiracy until it wasnt, Jose Conseco steroids accusations were a conspiracy until he wasnt, 2002 winter olympics ice skating was a 'conspiracy' until it wasnt. In light of the evidence (destruction of the tapes, Matt Walsh's claims to have super bowl walkthrough tapes until he lawyered up and went silent) its not that hard to draw lines of Goodell circling the wagons...
I for one certainly believe cheating helped the Pats more than the tuck rule... but I guess that where we diverge.... |
Believing what the Pats did gave them some sort of advantage isnt a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing the tapes were burned in some grand coverup is a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing Goodells punishment, in some way, indicates further transgressions involving SB wins and such is a tinhat conspiracy theory.
But yeah, let me get one thing straight. Some conspiracy theories were actually justified. Therefore this conspiracy theory (and any other) deserves merit?
Would lllllove to hear your thoughts on 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination. Unfortunately we cant discuss those topics. |
We are all more than welcome to believe whatever we want about Goodells actions and explanations for such. My belief that his actions were disingenuous are not really any more unfounded than your belief they were genuine – because you dont know his character or intentions any more than I do... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.
"no one will ever know" how big an advantage it was? Believing cheating helped a team win is no less 'tinfoil' than believing they wont those trophies 'because of the tuck rule'... can we wear matching tinfoil hats now?
Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, in this instance - the crime was worse than the coverup. You see, everything was a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy' until it was fact... Quiz Show was a conspiracy until it wasnt.... Pete Rose's gambling was a conspiracy until it wasnt, the Black Sox were a conspiracy until it wasnt, Jose Conseco steroids accusations were a conspiracy until he wasnt, 2002 winter olympics ice skating was a 'conspiracy' until it wasnt. In light of the evidence (destruction of the tapes, Matt Walsh's claims to have super bowl walkthrough tapes until he lawyered up and went silent) its not that hard to draw lines of Goodell circling the wagons...
I for one certainly believe cheating helped the Pats more than the tuck rule... but I guess that where we diverge.... |
Believing what the Pats did gave them some sort of advantage isnt a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing the tapes were burned in some grand coverup is a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing Goodells punishment, in some way, indicates further transgressions involving SB wins and such is a tinhat conspiracy theory.
But yeah, let me get one thing straight. Some conspiracy theories were actually justified. Therefore this conspiracy theory (and any other) deserves merit?
Would lllllove to hear your thoughts on 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination. Unfortunately we cant discuss those topics. |
We are all more than welcome to believe whatever we want about Goodells actions and explanations for such. My belief that his actions were disingenuous are not really any more unfounded than your belief they were genuine – because you dont know his character or intentions any more than I do... |
Fair enough. Nobody knows anything so everybody should assume anything.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | carnageehw wrote: | | Keleth wrote: | | Oh god please just go back and read this thread from the start and find the quotes from the rule book saying where you can't tape from but doesn't explicitly state you can't tape which vagueness led to the league sending a memo (also quoted god knows how many times in this thread) stipulating that no videotaping was allowed period. |
No. Because my point doesn't change. The rule is in place for a reson. THe Patriots broke the rule FOR A REASON.
THE RULE WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IF IT TAPING WHERE THE PATRIOTS TAPED DID NOT MATTER.
I don't have to know how much difference taping made. I am not claiming to know, nor am I claiming it made any specific difference. I am claiming it matter somewhat, because I'm not an idiot, and I know the NFL doesn't make rules and hand out punishments for no particular reason. |
Nowhere have I said they didn't break the rules,nowhere have I said their punishment was too harsh.Where do you get that idea ?
Of course they broke the rule to get an advantage,if that wasn't the case then why would anyone ever break a rule.How big that advantage was no one but the Pats will ever know.
I was merely replying in my quote to mr tinfoil hat Fender about what could be a reason they were punished as they were rather than it was a cover up by the NFL. |
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.
"no one will ever know" how big an advantage it was? Believing cheating helped a team win is no less 'tinfoil' than believing they wont those trophies 'because of the tuck rule'... can we wear matching tinfoil hats now?
Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime, in this instance - the crime was worse than the coverup. You see, everything was a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy' until it was fact... Quiz Show was a conspiracy until it wasnt.... Pete Rose's gambling was a conspiracy until it wasnt, the Black Sox were a conspiracy until it wasnt, Jose Conseco steroids accusations were a conspiracy until he wasnt, 2002 winter olympics ice skating was a 'conspiracy' until it wasnt. In light of the evidence (destruction of the tapes, Matt Walsh's claims to have super bowl walkthrough tapes until he lawyered up and went silent) its not that hard to draw lines of Goodell circling the wagons...
I for one certainly believe cheating helped the Pats more than the tuck rule... but I guess that where we diverge.... |
Believing what the Pats did gave them some sort of advantage isnt a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing the tapes were burned in some grand coverup is a tinhat conspiracy theory. Believing Goodells punishment, in some way, indicates further transgressions involving SB wins and such is a tinhat conspiracy theory.
But yeah, let me get one thing straight. Some conspiracy theories were actually justified. Therefore this conspiracy theory (and any other) deserves merit?
Would lllllove to hear your thoughts on 9/11 and the Kennedy assasination. Unfortunately we cant discuss those topics. |
We are all more than welcome to believe whatever we want about Goodells actions and explanations for such. My belief that his actions were disingenuous are not really any more unfounded than your belief they were genuine – because you dont know his character or intentions any more than I do... |
Fair enough. Nobody knows anything so everybody should assume anything. |
One thing I do know - is that Goodell the NFLs shephard. Its his job to do the bidding of the league, and its major investors.... therefor by extension its his duty to maintain the viability, integrity - and public perception - of the league.
Once again, it its NOT tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe that a CEO would protect his company.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | Once again, it its NOT tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe that a CEO would protect his company.... |
No. It's a tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe in a great big cover up with nothing to go off of but the fact that "its his job to protect the leagues interests."
You are assuming guilt based on nothing but motive. And shaky motive at that.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Once again, it its NOT tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe that a CEO would protect his company.... |
No. It's a tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe in a great big cover up with nothing to go off of but the fact that "its his job to protect the leagues interests."
You are assuming guilt based on nothing but motive. And shaky motive at that. |
There is more than just motive. There is the largest fine in the history of world sports... as well as Matt Walsh's superbowl walkthrough that became a non-story after the league and Walsh lawyered up and came to agreements...
The Boston Herald had ran with Walsh's walk-through story weeks before hand... then retracted after the NFL and Walsh finally struck a deal to 'talk' LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO to the NFL... obviously the pockets werent deep enough.
As you say... nothing but 'circumstantial evidence'.... but any lawyer knows... strands of circumstantial evidence eventually builds a rope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J Pep 4 Step
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 25389
Location: Greenvillain, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Once again, it its NOT tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe that a CEO would protect his company.... |
No. It's a tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe in a great big cover up with nothing to go off of but the fact that "its his job to protect the leagues interests."
You are assuming guilt based on nothing but motive. And shaky motive at that. |
There is more than just motive. There is the largest fine in the history of world sports... as well as Matt Walsh's superbowl walkthrough that became a non-story after the league and Walsh lawyered up and came to agreements...
The Boston Herald had ran with Walsh's walk-through story weeks before hand... then retracted after the NFL and Walsh finally struck a deal to 'talk' LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO to the NFL... obviously the pockets werent deep enough.
As you say... nothing but 'circumstantial evidence'.... but any lawyer knows... strands of circumstantial evidence eventually builds a rope. |
Nothing you just said is evidence of any kind. Circumstantial or otherwise. A guy said he had a tape. But apparently didnt. And a punishment was handed out for an infraction. Neither are "evidence" of any kind that there was some big cover up.
But this is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a conspiracy theorist and how it works. If its a matter of having a square peg and a round hole, the conspiracy theorist beats the peg until it fits the hole. And if he can't beat it to fit the hole, it just becomes part of the big cover up.
_________________
| jrry32 wrote: | | Faulk's argument style is reminiscent of Mark Sanchez's passing style. Inconsistent as hell and all over the place. I'm just waiting for him to run into iPwn's butt and fumble. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 811
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | J Pep 4 Step wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | Once again, it its NOT tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe that a CEO would protect his company.... |
No. It's a tinfoil hat conspiracy to believe in a great big cover up with nothing to go off of but the fact that "its his job to protect the leagues interests."
You are assuming guilt based on nothing but motive. And shaky motive at that. |
There is more than just motive. There is the largest fine in the history of world sports... as well as Matt Walsh's superbowl walkthrough that became a non-story after the league and Walsh lawyered up and came to agreements...
The Boston Herald had ran with Walsh's walk-through story weeks before hand... then retracted after the NFL and Walsh finally struck a deal to 'talk' LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO to the NFL... obviously the pockets werent deep enough.
As you say... nothing but 'circumstantial evidence'.... but any lawyer knows... strands of circumstantial evidence eventually builds a rope. |
Nothing you just said is evidence of any kind. Circumstantial or otherwise. A guy said he had a tape. But apparently didnt. And a punishment was handed out for an infraction. Neither are "evidence" of any kind that there was some big cover up.
But this is a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a conspiracy theorist and how it works. If its a matter of having a square peg and a round hole, the conspiracy theorist beats the peg until it fits the hole. And if he can't beat it to fit the hole, it just becomes part of the big cover up. |
Whatever homie... in the end im free to interpret the happenings as I see them, and your are free to believe whatever the status quo is.
And BTW, you should learn what 'evidence' really means... we are not in a court of law... but a court of football's future opinion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
