Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Hold the phone, There are people who still believe 'spygate'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Was it relevant?
Yes.
77%
 77%  [ 167 ]
No.
22%
 22%  [ 48 ]
Total Votes : 215

Author Message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29850
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:
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...


Ah yea. You are the "free thinker." The one "with vision." I just "go with the status quo."

Whatever helps you rationalize it, big guy.

And you are using law terms like "circumstantial evidence" in the court of footballs future. And pointing out what "any lawyer would know." How am I missing the mark by my response?
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fender


Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 904
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Fender wrote:
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...


Ah yea. You are the "free thinker." The one "with vision." I just "go with the status quo."

Whatever helps you rationalize it, big guy.

And you are using law terms like "circumstantial evidence" in the court of footballs future. And pointing out what "any lawyer would know." How am I missing the mark by my response?
Im not concluding that you are missing the mark. You have your bearings and beliefs. But if you are going to condense and marginalize my views into 'tin-foil hat conspiracies' then you should have a little better position than "Goodell said so". Now in a court of law (which you apparently dont understand) I might have to show incontrivertable proof that Goodell is a liar, in the court of public opinion I might only have to show that Kevin Burnett thinks hes a liar. In a court of law I might have to show that the NFL is only concerned with with profits and the bottom line, but in the court of public opinion I could present countless accounts of the NFLs burial of concussion data and brain damage data as circumstantial evidence that the NFL is in the business of keeping the NFL in business.

All it takes is a reasonable doubt to believe that a former liar is a current liar...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29850
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Fender wrote:
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...


Ah yea. You are the "free thinker." The one "with vision." I just "go with the status quo."

Whatever helps you rationalize it, big guy.

And you are using law terms like "circumstantial evidence" in the court of footballs future. And pointing out what "any lawyer would know." How am I missing the mark by my response?
Im not concluding that you are missing the mark. You have your bearings and beliefs. But if you are going to condense and marginalize my views into 'tin-foil hat conspiracies' then you should have a little better position than "Goodell said so". Now in a court of law (which you apparently dont understand) I might have to show incontrivertable proof that Goodell is a liar, in the court of public opinion I might only have to show that Kevin Burnett thinks hes a liar. In a court of law I might have to show that the NFL is only concerned with with profits and the bottom line, but in the court of public opinion I could present countless accounts of the NFLs burial of concussion data and brain damage data as circumstantial evidence that the NFL is in the business of keeping the NFL in business.

All it takes is a reasonable doubt to believe that a former liar is a current liar...


I understand all that. I understand that the court of public opinion is where conspiracy theories thrive. They thrive in the court of public opinion specifically because you don't need evidence. Only suspicions.

But you said I need to learn what "evidence" means. And pointed out that we arent in a court of law. And that was AFTER you used a courtroom term like "circumstantial evidence" and after saying "as any lawyer would know." You positioned, through specific semantics, your argument as if this were a courtroom. And when I responded in kind, you pulled the old switcheroo and took the "well this isnt a court of law" stance. Stop moving the goal posts.

Regardless, since this clearly is the court of public opinion and not a court of law, I dont need any evidence to support my opinion that your theory is tinhat either. All I need to do is point out you have absolutely nothing of merit to support some grand coverup. Just motive. "They have a reason to cover up anything, so they must be covering up everything."
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fender


Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 904
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Destroyed tapes... silenced accusers... you call that no evidence? OK homie. We'll just disagree on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29850
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:
Destroyed tapes... silenced accusers... you call that no evidence? OK homie. We'll just disagree on this.


Fact is the tapes were destroyed. Which, in and of itself, means nothing. That's where the conspiracy comes in. You are saying there is a coverup because they destroyed the tapes. How do you know there was anything damning on the tapes? You dont. But there may have been. And if that's the case, they would have had motive. So it must be a cover up.

"Silenced accusers" is just another conspiracy theory. Not sure you want to hang your hat on that one.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patsfan25


Joined: 07 Dec 2008
Posts: 5255
Location: CenCal
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:
Destroyed tapes... silenced accusers... you call that no evidence? OK homie. We'll just disagree on this.


You now have 593 posts and half of it is in this thread. Give it a rest.
_________________
2014 Adopt-A-Patriot: Logan Ryan
Status Quo: Steal of 2013 Draft
Tackles:4
Forced Fumbles:1
PDs2:
INTs:1
Pick 6s:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Keleth


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:
Oh please kid... you've been on the other side of every single point in this thread.


Care to show me where I've said they didn't break a rule,or where I said they didn't cheat etc ?

Fender wrote:

"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?


Wtf the Tuck rule has to do with this thread I've no idea or would you care to show me where I said the tuck rule was a conspiracy by the NFL ?

Fender wrote:

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...


I hope you wrote that wrong because you're saying every conspiracy theory has turned out to be a fact ?

Fender wrote:

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...


You mean the Matt Walsh who denied ever taping a walkthrough and denied saying to a journalist he had ?
Or do you mean the reporter who said he heard a rumour a walkthrough was taped then printed it ?
You mean the walkthrough tape that led to the Boston Herald printing a front page apology for printing something totally false ?
Here is just 1 Google result on Matt Walsh and the walkthrough tape.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3398828

This is where many conspiracy theories fall flat on their face,a person so wants to believe something that they take rumour as gospel and never question it and never follow up on it despite it being disproven time and again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HY7


Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 1186
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hold the phone. There are people that still think cheating is okay!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mosteelers


Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 1347
Location: Washington State
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HY7 wrote:
Hold the phone. There are people that still think cheating is okay!


Only if my cheating isn't as bad as someone else's Wink It seems that spygate "wasn't that bad" so the punishment was too harsh. Also, "If I think it is a conspiracy to punish the Patriots". Cheating is okay. If "the cheating really didn't do any harm". Cheating is also okay.

People can justify wrong actions all the time. It is the American way.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7639644/nfl-saints-bounty-story-worse-spygate

"Football is a sport that's violent enough. Having an incentive to hurt players can't be accepted. Commissioner Roger Goodell should deliberate this case and then make the biggest example out of the Saints so this offense won't be repeated. In Spygate, Goodell acted too quickly and did not penaltize the Patriots and Belichick as severely as he should have. Because Spygate happened early during the 2007 season, the Patriots and Belichick should have received a penalty beyond the fines during that season. A two- or three-game suspension of the head coach was warranted." - John Clayton
_________________

Sig courtesy of miafins23 Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fender


Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 904
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keleth wrote:

Fender wrote:

"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?


Wtf the Tuck rule has to do with this thread I've no idea or would you care to show me where I said the tuck rule was a conspiracy by the NFL ?
Keleth wrote:

Also all this stuff about how the Pats haven't won a SB etc since Spygate and so spygate must have been the reason they won all those SBs is crap (they won those because of that expletive Tuck rule)

Keleth wrote:

Fender wrote:

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...


I hope you wrote that wrong because you're saying every conspiracy theory has turned out to be a fact ?
No, I meant that all of those conspiracies I listed were tinfoil hat conspiracies until they were revealed to be true.
Keleth wrote:

Fender wrote:

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...


You mean the Matt Walsh who denied ever taping a walkthrough and denied saying to a journalist he had ?
Or do you mean the reporter who said he heard a rumour a walkthrough was taped then printed it ?
You mean the walkthrough tape that led to the Boston Herald printing a front page apology for printing something totally false ?
Here is just 1 Google result on Matt Walsh and the walkthrough tape.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3398828

This is where many conspiracy theories fall flat on their face,a person so wants to believe something that they take rumour as gospel and never question it and never follow up on it despite it being disproven time and again.
OMG. You need to really go review the timeline of events as they happened during the winter of 2007. How it came to light that there was a walk-through tape floating around out there; how Matt Walsh had tapes of some-sort; how the Patriots started a character assassination campaign against Walsh, or how the NFL enlisted former FBI agents to investigate Walsh's professional and personal life, or how Walsh demanded immunity before he would even talk to the NFL, or how it tooks weeks of legal wrangling before they NFL and Walk even talked?!? Really, you dont suspect anything? The patriots had already stated they would provide no recourse as long as Walsh returned all the tapes... so why all the speculation and lawyering up? If Walsh had no dirty laundry why did he come out of the woodwork and create such a hoopla only to disappear so fast?

When the Walsh story first broke, all the naysayers called him an attention seeker, a liar and after money. I tend to agree with those assessments - though that the first two were just a means to the third.

There is alot of smoke here, and it could very well be just smoke, but this isnt just a pure figment of my imagination. The existence of a walkthrough was a real story (subsequently retracted when the accuser eventually denied it).

If I was Goodell I sure would have paid off Walsh to obtain his silence if he did have a walkthrough tape. I dont think thats absurd at all. To take everything a billion dollar corporation feeds you hook line and sinker, without an ounce of suspicion, is absurd in my opinion.

At any rate we all know we the rest of us stand, we really are beating a dead horse now... but at the end of the day I dont necessarily believe that spygate was a cover-up, but I surely dont discount that it might have been either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keleth


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fender wrote:

Also all this stuff about how the Pats haven't won a SB etc since Spygate and so spygate must have been the reason they won all those SBs is crap (they won those because of that expletive Tuck rule)


Do I say the tuck rule was a conspiracy ?
No it wasn't,it was just a totally stupid decision that started the Pats off on their run of success.

Fender wrote:

OMG. You need to really go review the timeline of events as they happened during the winter of 2007. How it came to light that there was a walk-through tape floating around out there; how Matt Walsh had tapes of some-sort; how the Patriots started a character assassination campaign against Walsh, or how the NFL enlisted former FBI agents to investigate Walsh's professional and personal life, or how Walsh demanded immunity before he would even talk to the NFL, or how it tooks weeks of legal wrangling before they NFL and Walk even talked?!? Really, you dont suspect anything? The patriots had already stated they would provide no recourse as long as Walsh returned all the tapes... so why all the speculation and lawyering up? If Walsh had no dirty laundry why did he come out of the woodwork and create such a hoopla only to disappear so fast?

When the Walsh story first broke, all the naysayers called him an attention seeker, a liar and after money. I tend to agree with those assessments - though that the first two were just a means to the third.


Fender wrote:

The existence of a walkthrough was a real story (subsequently retracted when the accuser eventually denied it).


Walsh wasn't the accuser though.
Did you read the article I quoted ?
The 1 where the journalist who broke the walkthrough story admitted he printed a rumour from people he knew ?
Not from Walsh but from people the journalist knew.
He heard the rumour before spygate broke then printed it because he thought it must be true then.
Stop believing what you want to believe and actually read what the people involved admit to.
The reason Walsh wanted immunity was because he had the tapes from various games that he had made under orders from Bellicheck which he then turned over to the NFL.Walsh himself never once said he taped a walkthrough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GeorgiaBoy367


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 4869
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hypothetically speaking lets say there was a 3 point advantage between the info on the Spygate tapes and not having the info. Well maybe we could look at these differently.


New England 20, St. Louis 17
New England 32, Carolina 29
New England 24, Philadelphia 21
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Turner


Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Posts: 16
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LMAO

Patriots: $250k fine, lost first-round draft pick.
Belichick: $500k fine

Post-season record pre-Spygate: 12-2
Post-season record post-Spygate: 5-5


[img]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016761c587b7970b-800wi[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VrabelCrable


Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1889
Location: CT
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nat Turner wrote:
LMAO

Patriots: $250k fine, lost first-round draft pick.
Belichick: $500k fine

Post-season record pre-Spygate: 12-2
Post-season record post-Spygate: 5-5


[img]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016761c587b7970b-800wi[/img]



Love your logic. Its not like we have different players in 2012 then we did in 2001.











Guess what? Still there. Keep hatin. Enjoy Laughing
_________________


Deadpulse^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 22856
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread is from last March, can we please lock it?
_________________

BlaqOptic wrote:
Salty about Dennis Pitta? Please... Dude is average as average goes...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 of 32

 
Jump to:  
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