No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What does this mean?

It means you can screw his wife as long as he doesn't find out about it.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What does this mean?

When you have whiskey dick so frequently that you can't perform your husbandly duties, I think your wife would be perfectly justified is getting hers elsewhere as long as she's not hurting you, for example.

*Intentionally shitty example, for obvious reasons.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It means you can screw his wife as long as he doesn't find out about it.

TM

As though this is not equally as true for you.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I totally get that your opinions are based entirely on your distaste for Patriots fans

You love this. It's your go-to defense mechanism. The problem is, I don't find Patriots fans any more odious than Jets fans, Raiders fans, or Eagles fans. I think most fans of any team that has been accused of the enormous amount of shady shit as your team would react in a similar way. What you don't seem to get is that your thoughts are so heavily influenced by your homer-dom that you have zero credibility. You try to accuse me of the same thing (on the flip), but you can't seem to get it through your head that I would make the same arguments against any other team in the league if they were accused of the shit the Patriots were accused of.

When I shit all over Tebow, religious lunatics say I have it out for him. And they pointed out that magical 3 game set when he just won, baby!

When I criticize Kobe because he's selfish, I'm just a hater and clearly don't like the Lakers'.

When I talk about how fraudulent Phil Jackson is, I'm just jealous of his amazing success.

When I shit on the Knicks' complete ineptitude or the Yankees' (abundantly clear) knowledge of Arod's and Giambi's juicing, no one bats an eye. Funny that.

When I shit on the Patriots cheating ways, it's all because I just can't stand Boston.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

...rather than, say, reading Berman's decision. Frabjous.

I read it. I think it's often ridiculous. And your conclusion, after admitting that whether or not Brady cheated was not at issue, that you think the judge didn't think Brady cheated based on the loosest of dicta is just comical. But whatever helps you take Brady balls deep without gagging. More power to ya.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It sure is.

What I find the most shocking about Spygate and Deflategate is the constant refrain that none of the dirty shit they were clearly doing had much of an impact on any game. How the fuck is this a defense to anything? How does anyone know how much of an impact it had. Given how intricate Spygate seems to have been and the level of risk allegedly taken in Deflategate, why the fuck would they do it if there is no value?

TM

Ever since Bucky Fucking Dent's corked bat, the question for most major league sports has not been "is someone cheating" but "can you catch someone cheating". I blame the Yankees for all of it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

When you have whiskey dick so frequently that you can't perform your husbandly duties, I think your wife would be perfectly justified is getting hers elsewhere as long as she's not hurting you, for example.

What the fuck? I guess the "not hurting you" part is her not mentioning it to you* or anyone else, or being seen with the other guy?

If that's the case, I guess the only problem you'd have is your embarrassment if she exposed your inability to perform? Or would it be the embarrassment you'd feel at the fact that everyone else knew someone else was fucking your wife?

This is fascinating.

Originally Posted by Adder

As though this is not equally as true for you.

Incorrect. You are okay with it prospectively.

TM

*Wait. That can't be it, because you'd be okay with it. Should she not tell you how much she enjoyed it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

*Intentionally shitty example, for obvious reasons.

why shitty and why obvious?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

the question for most major league sports has not been "is someone cheating" but "can you catch someone cheating".

At least this is an honest response.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What the fuck? I guess the "not hurting you" part is her not mentioning it to you or anyone else, or being seen with the other guy?

If that's the case, I guess the only problem you'd have is your embarrassment if she exposed your inability to perform? Or would it be the embarrassment you'd feel at the fact that everyone else knew someone else was fucking your wife?


TM

his example was intended to turn it on me, i think.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You love this. It's your go-to defense mechanism. The problem is, I don't find Patriots fans any more odious than Jets fans, Raiders fans, or Eagles fans. I think most fans of any team that has been accused of the enormous amount of shady shit as your team would react in a similar way. What you don't seem to get is that your thoughts are so heavily influenced by your homer-dom that you have zero credibility. You try to accuse me of the same thing (on the flip), but you can't seem to get it through your head that I would make the same arguments against any other team in the league if they were accused of the shit the Patriots were accused of.

When I shit all over Tebow, religious lunatics say I have it out for him. And they pointed out that magical 3 game set when he just won, baby!

When I criticize Kobe because he's selfish, I'm just a hater and clearly don't like the Lakers'.

When I talk about how fraudulent Phil Jackson is, I'm just jealous of his amazing success.

When I shit on the Knicks' complete ineptitude or the Yankees' (abundantly clear) knowledge of Arod's and Giambi's juicing, no one bats an eye. Funny that.

When I shit on the Patriots cheating ways, it's all because I just can't stand Boston.

Whatever.

I read it. I think it's often ridiculous. And your conclusion, after admitting that whether or not Brady cheated was not at issue, that you think the judge didn't think Brady cheated based on the loosest of dicta is just comical. But whatever helps you take Brady balls deep without gagging. More power to ya.

TM

You posted something about Berman's decision which was incorrect. Since I actually have read Berman's decision, I posted about it. In response, you said, "Ha ha ha. No it's not. It's hard for a Patriots fan to come to any conclusion other than they each want to take Brady in their mouth." You may not have a particular grudge against Pats fans, but I don't think I'm way off-base in guessing that mood affiliation is involved. (And all that other shit you're posting about now -- I don't think those conversations were with me.) I'm not sure how you're forming your opinions about things like what Berman wrote, but actually reading what he wrote would give you better information.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What the fuck? I guess the "not hurting you" part is her not mentioning it to you or anyone else, or being seen with the other guy?

As I said, shitty example as Hank's hypothetical drinking is an issue of it's own.

But let's say Hank's got some sort of chronic medical condition that says he can only perform a few times a year. Whereas his wife feels unfulfilled if she's not getting some at least weekly. This wasn't an issue before Hank got ill, and Hank's done everything possible to try to treat it.

You think Hank's wife should just have to go on being unfulfilled? Or that her leaving him over the lack of sexual satisfaction is kinder/more appropriate/less hurtful than doing what she has to do to stay sane and stay married?

Assuming that she really wants to stay with Hank (ha!) and just wants some sexual fulfillment, I think she's perfectly justified with getting some on the side.

Doing so respectfully and discretely would be the challenge, of which "being seen with" is one aspect.

Of course, this is also the kind of scenario in which Hank should be expressly giving his permission, but let's say Hank has insurmountable jealously issues or something.

If that's the case, I guess the only problem you'd have is your embarrassment if she exposed your inability to perform? Or would it be the embarrassment you'd feel at the fact that everyone else knew someone else was fucking your wife?

In these scenarios, my embarrassment would be that she didn't think she could seek my permission, which she would have gotten. The deal changed in a material way and she shouldn't have to bear the entire burden of that change.

You are okay with it prospectively.

I'm okay with is in certain rare situations. You're not okay with it.

Neither of those things matter to Hank when he's working our wives.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Neither of those things matter to Hank when he's working our wives.

what does this mean?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It sure is.

What I find the most shocking about Spygate and Deflategate is the constant refrain that none of the dirty shit they were clearly doing had much of an impact on any game. How the fuck is this a defense to anything? How does anyone know how much of an impact it had. Given how intricate Spygate seems to have been and the level of risk allegedly taken in Deflategate, why the fuck would they do it if there is no value?

TM

1. It has to have an impact. If you illegally figure out just one play before the snap, that has a direct impact on the game - NFL games are routinely decided by one or two plays. A successful completion on third down at the 50 turns into an incompletion resulting in a punt. That's one play that had a huge effect on the probability of the opponent scoring. We've all played Tecmo Bowl and know what happens when you call the other team's play.

2. Bill Simmons went on a twitter rant blaming Colts/Eagles/Steelers losses to the Cheatriots on actions or inactions of those teams, as if dumb decisions/plays made by those teams somehow negates the Patriots illegally knowing exactly what those teams were going to call. That's insane logic.

3. I was actually rooting for Brady to win the appeal because Gooddell is such a moron.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

1. It has to have an impact. If you illegally figure out just one play before the snap, that has a direct impact on the game - NFL games are routinely decided by one or two plays. A successful completion on third down at the 50 turns into an incompletion resulting in a punt. That's one play that had a huge effect on the probability of the opponent scoring. We've all played Tecmo Bowl and know what happens when you call the other team's play.

Any team could have someone watching the other team's signals and telling the sideline what they were going to do. What the Patriots allegedly did was videotape the signals to try to learn them better. I don't have the link open so you'll have to find it yourself, but Deadspin tries to figure out whether the guy who was doing this was getting the calls right and making a difference. I'm sure it helped, or they wouldn't have done it. But it doesn't sound like it helped much. They certainly did not know exactly what those teams were going to call.

eta: from my browser history, Deadspin link

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You posted something about Berman's decision which was incorrect. Since I actually have read Berman's decision, I posted about it. In response, you said, "Ha ha ha. No it's not. It's hard for a Patriots fan to come to any conclusion other than they each want to take Brady in their mouth." You may not have a particular grudge against Pats fans, but I don't think I'm way off-base in guessing that mood affiliation is involved. (And all that other shit you're posting about now -- I don't think those conversations were with me.) I'm not sure how you're forming your opinions about things like what Berman wrote, but actually reading what he wrote would give you better information.

Fuck off. I read most of Berman's decision. Your biggest complaint with what I wrote has to do with a technical point of his decision. Maybe you're right that I should have distinguished whether or not Goodell's power to appoint himself hearing officer in 'any appeal' was not itself found to be in violation of due process, but his application of such power in this case was (although, practically speaking, I don't see a difference--the judge is basically saying that the word "any" does not apply).

But the fact that you continue to assert that the judge has vindicated Brady (indirectly or not) of the underlying cheating accusation is just bullshit.

That said, I find his entire line of reasoning that Brady had no notice that he may be punished for engaging in a cheating scheme (or, to be specific, this particular cheating scheme) to be absofuckinglutely ridiculous. The decision relating to Brady's inability to compel testimony from Pash or to review notes of the investigation seems pretty sound.

TM