Now that the transcripts have been released for deflategate.....

[cbfalcon 825]

I agree. And you're still harping on mean nasty Goodell. Don't care. I'm not a supporter. Simply am tired of that team breaking the rules and then lying about it. They could fire Goodell for all I care (but they wont)

 

And I'm not a Brady or Patriots supporter. I supported them when they had Randy Moss (favorite player ever maybe), but otherwise could care less about them really.

 

My views are simply based on the evidence. There isn't enough to even prove a crime occurred at the AFC Championship game, let alone enough to tie Tom Brady to it. And whatever evidence there is has been compromised by the league having their people edit reports and the commissioner being caught lying about the evidence. It's that simple.

[NewbieJr 541]

Lol. Ok buddy

[Magnificent Bastard 191]

 

And I'm not a Brady or Patriots supporter. I supported them when they had Randy Moss (favorite player ever maybe), but otherwise could care less about them really.

 

My views are simply based on the evidence. There isn't enough to even prove a crime occurred at the AFC Championship game, let alone enough to tie Tom Brady to it. And whatever evidence there is has been compromised by the league having their people edit reports and the commissioner being caught lying about the evidence. It's that simple.

What would ever poses you to say Randy Moss is your favorite player? Why? Was it his team first attitude?

[cbfalcon 825]

Lol. Ok buddy

 

I know......."Nickname from 8 months before!!! LOL LOL. That is all the proof I needed to suspend him 4 games, take away draft picks, and issue a million in fines. LOL LOL LOL. I'm destroying you!", etc etc etc.

[Kanil 520]

And this is where it comes to an agree to disagree conclusion again. I personally believe he had a part in it from the texts/phone calls that were made. I don't believe he called the guy deflator because he lost weight or whatever other excuses they've changed to now. I don't believe a ballboy would deflate balls without being told to. I don't believe Brady is innocent. I do believe he committed perjury.

 

I also believe all of this, except the perjury part, is no big deal. While I think the team, and possibly Brady, should have gotten some sort of fine, I don't think there should have been a suspension at all.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I'll spell it out for you then since it's not clicking. The guy says "You know I CAN increase your suspension if I want to". That is a clear implication that he if Brady isn't willing to back down then he will increase his suspension. That is what a threat is. So if he has no desire to increase Brady's punishment then tell me WHY he brings it up? 2+2=4 yet that doesn't seem to click

 

I disagree that it is an implication that he will do something.

If I say...some days my son acts so bad, I could just smack him.

If you then say...hey, ShoNuff claimed if his son acts up again he would smack him...you would be factually incorrect.

Just as your claim that Goodell has stated he would increase it is factually incorrect...as I pointed out.

 

The threat is what it is...Goodell laid out there what he could do. I have no reason to believe he would actually increase it after all of what has gone on.

He brings it up to see if the other side would blink.

Its pretty simple logic...but some don't want to see that...as I said, you see what you want to.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

I know......."Nickname from 8 months before!!! LOL LOL. That is all the proof I needed to suspend him 4 games, take away draft picks, and issue a million in fines. LOL LOL LOL. I'm destroying you!", etc etc etc.

it was the weight loss. The ball boys had to pee. Brady destroys all of his phones. Lol. This is so easy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Yeah, I just read that.

 

So if Brady admitted to perjury, opening himself up to criminal charges.....and stated that the league as the right to suspend players as it sees fit, thus effectively enhancing Goodell's power by creating precedent....Goodell was willing to reduce it to only a 3 game suspension. :lol:

 

Brady's counter should have been "Roger, you admit you are guilty of contempt of court in the Adrian Peterson case, and issue a public apology. Then I'll pay a fine for not giving you my cell phone".

 

Its not enhancing his powers...its admitting he has the power that is already granted to him by the CBA.

[cbfalcon 825]

What would ever poses you to say Randy Moss is your favorite player? Why? Was it his team first attitude?

 

Oh, that's more than a one sentence answer. But short version is I view sports as entertainment....While watching the Dark Knight, I also find the Joker's scenes more interesting than Maggie Gylinhaal's.......and that moment of anticipation when I'd see Brady or Cunningham or Culpepper rear back, and you'd know they were going deep.....well that was always a short adrenaline rush on par with watching Usian Bolt coming around the corner in the 200. In short, my answer is "Fun".

[Sho Nuff 720]

Fact is even the judge, who is an impartial person in this, has had trouble in finding anything the related to Brady in the whole thing. Yet some people still can't get it through their heads that he honestly might not have had anything to do with it

 

The judge has only questioned that there was no direct evidence.

I think everyone has already admitted as such.

[cbfalcon 825]

 

Its not enhancing his powers...its admitting he has the power that is already granted to him by the CBA.

 

Legal analysts have said otherwise. I tend to defer to them on the effect it would have legally.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

I disagree that it is an implication that he will do something.

If I say...some days my son acts so bad, I could just smack him.

If you then say...hey, ShoNuff claimed if his son acts up again he would smack him...you would be factually incorrect.

Just as your claim that Goodell has stated he would increase it is factually incorrect...as I pointed out.

 

The threat is what it is...Goodell laid out there what he could do. I have no reason to believe he would actually increase it after all of what has gone on.

He brings it up to see if the other side would blink.

Its pretty simple logic...but some don't want to see that...as I said, you see what you want to.

Jesus sho you just can't ever admit you were wrong about something can you? Let's take your example and switch it to where it actually fits this situation instead. You are using it as you are talking to someone else. I'll use it like its being used here:

 

If my son is acting bad I say to him "you know son if you're being bad I CAN smack you". That is indeed classified as a threat. Yet your mind continually twists and turns things so they work out better in your head the way you want them to. Admit you're wrong then shut up about it and move on

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

The judge has only questioned that there was no direct evidence.

I think everyone has already admitted as such.

Ok so if there is no evidence then there should be no case. Judge is seeing it as that too. Which he has grilled the NFL for and they have not given a sufficient answer

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Legal analysts have said otherwise. I tend to defer to them on the effect it would have legally.

 

I think it strengthens it giving precedence...but does not "enhance".

It adds nothing to his powers...just backs up what people have said that he already has.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Jesus sho you just can't ever admit you were wrong about something can you? Let's take your example and switch it to where it actually fits this situation instead. You are using it as you are talking to someone else. I'll use it like its being used here:

 

If my son is acting bad I say to him "you know son if you're being bad I CAN smack you". That is indeed classified as a threat. Yet your mind continually twists and turns things so they work out better in your head the way you want them to. Admit you're wrong then shut up about it and move on

 

Dude....you were the one that made a false claim about what was said.

It is you who is focking wrong.

Unless you can focking point out where Goodell has stated that he "would" increase it.

That is the claim you made that I disagreed with...and you have brought nothing to refute my disagreement.

 

I am not saying its not a thread...Im saying your claim that he "would" do it is incorrect...and you won't focking admit that.

Its hilarious watching your poor spin.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ok so if there is no evidence then there should be no case. Judge is seeing it as that too. Which he has grilled the NFL for and they have not given a sufficient answer

 

I didn't say there was no evidence...I said there was no direct evidence. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence linking him to having knowledge of what was going on.

HTH

[cbfalcon 825]

 

I think it strengthens it giving precedence...but does not "enhance".

It adds nothing to his powers...just backs up what people have said that he already has.

 

FYI "Enhance" and "strengthen" are synonyms. So you probably should bail on arguing that it strengthens it but doesn't enhance it. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/enhance

 

As far as my choice of words, I simply stole the phrasing from Mike Frolio, who wrote "It’s now clear that the league hopes to emerge from any settlement with what amounts to an enhancement of the labor deal that empowers the NFL to broadly interpret “conduct detrimental” in the future — and to suspend players who obstruct league investigations, even if that’s something the NFL has never previously done."

[Djgb13 2,339]

Ok sho I'm done entertaining the thought of getting anything through your head. Every time I try to you cover your eyes and ears and go "la la la la la la I can't hear you". So I'm done. You can't fix stupid or win an argument with a stupid person so I'm calling it quits here with you

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

FYI "Enhance" and "strengthen" are synonyms. So you probably should bail on arguing that it strengthens it but doesn't enhance it. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/enhance

 

As far as my choice of words, I simply stole the phrasing from Mike Frolio, who wrote "It’s now clear that the league hopes to emerge from any settlement with what amounts to an enhancement of the labor deal that empowers the NFL to broadly interpret “conduct detrimental” in the future — and to suspend players who obstruct league investigations, even if that’s something the NFL has never previously done."

 

No...Enhance would be adding to something.

Strengthen indicates the power is already there.

 

Florio has been a shill for the Pats lately...and I have typically taken much of his rumor mongering with a grain of salt over the years.

 

That they have never done something before does not mean he didn't already having th power to do it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ok sho I'm done entertaining the thought of getting anything through your head. Every time I try to you cover your eyes and ears and go "la la la la la la I can't hear you". So I'm done. You can't fix stupid or win an argument with a stupid person so I'm calling it quits here with you

 

Whatever makes you feel better and avoid admitting you made up a BS claim that you can't back up.

Pretty laughable how you want others to admit they are wrong when my points have been 100% factual when speaking with you about what you had dead wrong.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

Whatever makes you feel better and avoid admitting you made up a BS claim that you can't back up.

Pretty laughable how you want others to admit they are wrong when my points have been 100% factual when speaking with you about what you had dead wrong.

Whatever you say sho. Had problems with you in the past not listening to reason but like I said I'm done trying to argue with you cause it goes nowhere

[Sho Nuff 720]

Sorry newbs but cb is right. No matter what you say to defend him Goodell is the biggest liar of them all and will do what he wants. So of the NFL wins the case then I feel certain he will in fact increase Brady's suspension based on his past and what he has stated a few weeks ago

 

 

He has considered that. He straight up told Brady to drop his suit or else he could increase his suspension. So I can see him doing that. Here's is the link for you

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/2339290/tom-brady-suspension-deflategate/

 

You should have stopped with the post with the link.

Saying he could do it (and understand that you and I are saying the same thing with that....though, I don't see him actually doing it).

That top quote is where you lose it....

 

And if you have problem with people it seems to be because you like to make things up and then want them to admit they are wrong when they have not stated anything incorrectly.

 

Also...the next time you even try using "reason" or anything "reasonable" it will be the first in this topic.

[cbfalcon 825]

 

No...Enhance would be adding to something.

Strengthen indicates the power is already there.

 

Florio has been a shill for the Pats lately...and I have typically taken much of his rumor mongering with a grain of salt over the years.

 

That they have never done something before does not mean he didn't already having th power to do it.

So now you are arguing with the dictionary on the definition of enhance.

 

 

 

 

enhance

 

 

[en-hans, -hahns]

verb (used with object), enhanced, enhancing. 1. to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify:

 

 

In other words enhancing his powers doesn't mean adding new powers. It means intensifying, magnifying, strengthening, his powers....raising the powers he has to a higher degree....enhancing them.

 

I am actually with you in your argument against DjgB13 at the moment, but if you can't admit that the dictionary definition of enhance is more accurate than your definition of enhance, then he is right. You are incapable of admitting you can be wrong about anything ever.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

So now you are arguing with the dictionary on the definition of enhance.

 

 

 

 

In other words enhancing his powers doesn't mean adding new powers. It means intensifying, magnifying, strengthening, his powers....raising the powers he has to a higher degree....enhancing them.

 

I am actually with you in your argument against DjgB13 at the moment, but if you can't admit that the dictionary definition of enhance is more accurate than your definition of enhance, then he is right. You are incapable of admitting you can be wrong about anything ever.

Whatever...semantics.

 

The whole point is...the power, to some degree is there.

I think strengthen sounds better.

Use enhance if you want....whatever.

 

Its power he already has.

 

Much more dangerous is a judge doing the job of collective bargaining which would actually remove power from a commissioner (not just Goodell...but all who come after him)

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

 

 

You should have stopped with the post with the link.

Saying he could do it (and understand that you and I are saying the same thing with that....though, I don't see him actually doing it).

That top quote is where you lose it....

 

And if you have problem with people it seems to be because you like to make things up and then want them to admit they are wrong when they have not stated anything incorrectly.

 

Also...the next time you even try using "reason" or anything "reasonable" it will be the first in this topic.

Problem here is you want to correct everyone on this matter if they side with the patriots. Fact is sho you are clueless when it comes to these things. If you agree with the post where I had the link then it's the same dam thing I said in the top quote. He told Brady to drop the suit or he could increase his suspension. How the hell is that not a threat? You say it's not but dam are you that blind

[Kanil 520]

Ok so if there is no evidence then there should be no case. Judge is seeing it as that too. Which he has grilled the NFL for and they have not given a sufficient answer

 

Not having enough evidence to convict in a court of law does not mean the person didn't do it. There is evidence, it's just not what a court would take as such.

[Magnificent Bastard 191]

Whatever you say sho. Had problems with you in the past not listening to reason but like I said I'm done trying to argue with you cause it goes nowhere

Don't argue with stupid people. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

Not having enough evidence to convict in a court of law does not mean the person didn't do it. There is evidence, it's just not what a court would take as such.

And I get that too. I just don't see how they can play by different rules. If it was me I'd be upset they can pretty much whatever they want as evidence even whn no court would ever say that it's actually evidence

[Sho Nuff 720]

Problem here is you want to correct everyone on this matter if they side with the patriots. Fact is sho you are clueless when it comes to these things. If you agree with the post where I had the link then it's the same dam thing I said in the top quote. He told Brady to drop the suit or he could increase his suspension. How the hell is that not a threat? You say it's not but dam are you that blind

 

Not really...another false claim by you about me so far.

Im so clueless...yet you can't even come up with what I said that was incorrect.

Where did I just say it was not a threat? I have said multiple times its a thread. We disagree on the liklihood that he would follow up on it. Yet, you are again making something up to fit in with your view (something that is factually incorrect at that).

 

You just stated where its the same as the top quote...that is BS.

Your top quote above states that you feel "he will in fact increase Brady's suspension based on his past and what he has stated a few weeks ago"

 

Yet...what he stated was that he could do it...not that he will.

Its that, which you still don't seem to get despite me pointing it out multiple times. Im really glad you are not my doctor of any kind...I prefer my medical professionals to not be so focking slow.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Don't argue with stupid people. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

Which is why most just laugh at half of what you say on this board.

[Sho Nuff 720]

And I get that too. I just don't see how they can play by different rules. If it was me I'd be upset they can pretty much whatever they want as evidence even whn no court would ever say that it's actually evidence

 

A court would say its circumstantial evidence.

Which, despite the denial of pats supporters, is actually a type of evidence.

[Magnificent Bastard 191]

 

Which is why most just laugh at half of what you say on this board.

For all your postings, you never manage to interest or entertain. You are the saltine cracker of the geek club.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

Not really...another false claim by you about me so far.

Im so clueless...yet you can't even come up with what I said that was incorrect.

Where did I just say it was not a threat? I have said multiple times its a thread. We disagree on the liklihood that he would follow up on it. Yet, you are again making something up to fit in with your view (something that is factually incorrect at that).

 

You just stated where its the same as the top quote...that is BS.

Your top quote above states that you feel "he will in fact increase Brady's suspension based on his past and what he has stated a few weeks ago"

 

Yet...what he stated was that he could do it...not that he will.

Its that, which you still don't seem to get despite me pointing it out multiple times. Im really glad you are not my doctor of any kind...I prefer my medical professionals to not be so focking slow.

This whole argument has been based on Goodell making a threat that if Brady didn't drop the lawsuit then he could increase his punishment. If you're saying that he was making that implication then I apologize. I don't feel like scrolling all the way back on my phone try to even attempt to do multiple quote so I'll just take your word for it. If all we are disagreeing on is the fact that if he will follow up on said threat then that's a different story and a matter of opinion which I won't argue about because that is something everyone is entitled to and I see no logic in telling someone their opinion on what might happen is wrong because it could in fact happen.

[Sho Nuff 720]

For all your postings, you never manage to interest or entertain. You are the saltine cracker of the geek club.

You overestimate your own worth here.

Go back to following wiff around.

[Magnificent Bastard 191]

You overestimate your own worth here.

Go back to following wiff around.

Worth? What a loser. You're the guy that gives out Mary Janes on Halloween.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Worth? What a loser. You're the guy that gives out Mary Janes on Halloween.

 

Even GFIAFP makes more sense than this post.

[Magnificent Bastard 191]

 

Even GFIAFP makes more sense than this post.

GF is way more interesting than you. You're a big zip around here.

[Djgb13 2,339]

You know it must be bad when people are tossing around the "you're worse than gfiafp" line lol

[Sho Nuff 720]

You know it must be bad when people are tossing around the "you're worse than gfiafp" line lol

I may disagree with you, but at least there is substance to your posts...

[Djgb13 2,339]

I may disagree with you, but at least there is substance to your posts...

I can add things to discussion on this board every now and then. Not a complete waste of space