Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game (and Deflategate discussion)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    1) The Patriots taped opponent's practices, said Mike Golic and about 5 other guys. Umm.... that was an accusation that was retracted on the front page. An accusation that the newspaper who reported it says was false, they said that their source was lying, a source that was identified (the former equipment guy), who even went on camera and said to the world that the accusation was not true. The false accusation came two days before the Super Bowl and was a MAJOR distraction. The retraction:
    So the Pats were punished for something that didn't happen, and they just allowed themselves to take that punishment on the chin for good looks or something?

    EDIT: Oh okay, the Pats didn't illegally video tape practices, they illegally video taped coaches during games. I don't think pointing out that one rule wasn't broken, while another rule was, is a good defense. Esepcially when Shade's post was about unsportsmanlike conduct in general, not a specific accusation.
    Last edited by Since86; 01-22-2015, 02:09 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      You do realize that this stuff is not even in the NFL rule book, don't you?

      It is in the NFL Field Operations guide. This is a book that goes into all sorts of details on a whole lot of issues, such as how often to water a natural grass field, when it should be mowed, how to inflate footballs, when/where to use cameras, guidelines for stadium security, disaster preparedness, fire safety, how often to to check if goal posts are level, how best to straighten the goal posts, how yard lines should be painted, etc.

      I doubt that any player or coach knows it chapter and verse as they would the actual NFL rule book.
      Wait, what? Yes, it is in the rulebook

      EDIT: nevermind, I'm slow.

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        One thing is for sure... there will be a new system in place in about a week and it will be further scrutinized and tweaked before next season.
        Front page of ESPN

        Impartial staff to handle SB XLIX game balls

        Bears equipment manager in charge

        As per its custom, the NFL will follow a modified set of procedures to prepare game balls for Super Bowl XLIX. Established long before allegations of underinflated balls in the AFC Championship Game, the process includes independent equipment managers and ball attendants.

        Still, the league "expects that the Competition Committee will review all of these procedures in the offseason," according to NFL spokesman Michael Signora.

        The league found earlier this week that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were significantly underinflated during the AFC Championship Game, ESPN's Chris Mortensen has reported. In that game, the Patriots' equipment staff supplied balls to referee Walt Anderson at the required two hours, 15 minutes before the game for inspection. As per NFL policy, Anderson marked each ball with his approval and ultimately returned them to the Patriots' ball boys.

        In the Super Bowl, however, the NFL will use Chicago Bears equipment manager Tony Medlin to organize the process. Ball boys were hired prior to last week's games.


        Here is the full statement Signora provided:


        "Like many aspects of our policies and procedures, there are modifications for the Super Bowl.


        "At the Super Bowl, the equipment manager of another team [Bears, Tony Medlin] is in charge of the game balls and arranging for the ball attendant crews, which are hired before the Super Bowl teams are determined. The officials will maintain strict control of the game balls for the Super Bowl.


        "Many aspects of the regular-season process are in place. The Super Bowl teams receive balls to work with during practice as per our policies. The balls are then returned to the league late next week.


        "We would expect that the Competition Committee will review all of these procedures in the offseason."


        The scope of that review will depend in part on the league's ongoing investigation into the AFC Championship Game. Thursday,
        Patriots coach Bill Belichick said he had "no explanation" for the underinflated balls.


        The Pats will take on the Seattle Seahawks in next Sunday's Super Bowl

        Comment


        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          I hear this often, the long list of transgressions. It never fails that the list includes lot of things that we now know NEVER HAPPENED OR COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, but indeed once upon a time someone speculated that they might have happened, so the general public assumed that they in fact did happen.

          We heard several such falsehoods, just yesterday.

          1) The Patriots taped opponent's practices, said Mike Golic and about 5 other guys. Umm.... that was an accusation that was retracted on the front page. An accusation that the newspaper who reported it says was false, they said that their source was lying, a source that was identified (the former equipment guy), who even went on camera and said to the world that the accusation was not true. The false accusation came two days before the Super Bowl and was a MAJOR distraction. The retraction:



          2) Big news yesterday: the Ravens say that something was DEFINITELY weird with the kicking balls used in their playoff game. The Pats cheated! (This is still repeated, over and over!) Umm.... then it came out that the kicking balls are in fact shared by both teams, they are never out of the referees possession, they are opened from sealed boxes by the refs and inflated, and they are never handed over to any ball attendants or ball boys. Nobody touched them but refs. The accusation is physically impossible!

          3) I think it was Dallas Clark who said in an interview that the Colts were always concerned that the locker rooms might be bugged, so they wouldn't discuss game strategy there. The accusation: The Patriots bug the locker rooms! The evidence? None.

          4) A coach related the story that on two different instances their headsets stopped working in games at Foxboro. The accusation: The Patriots rig the headsets to fail! After all, Belichick is fishing buddies with Jimmy Johnson, who with Miami figured out how to bypass the cutoff switch on the first generation of NFL headsets (which were immediately replaced with better technology). The evidence of the Patriots rigging headsets? None. Imagine that electronic equipment might sometimes fail in 35 degree freezing rain outdoors. Inconceivable!

          5) Rams players insist that the Patriots knew their offensive plays so well, just by formation, that they had to have stolen their offensive signals. After all, spygate was all about taping signals. Wait... defensive signals. Oh, whatever. Signals are signals. THE PATRIOTS CHEATED AGAIN! The evidence? Non-existant. Maybe they scouted the Rams?

          6) The idea of eligible/ineligible players was cheating! It was something new! Well, it was not illegal, not new, was done by another team in the NFL this year (Vikings), and was done on a national college game of the week (LSU-Alabama). It was done when I played FB in high school. They even huddled after the substitution, which the refs properly announced. The defense had 8-10 seconds until the snap each time. But still... THEY CHEATED!

          You get the idea.

          Every accusation buy anyone is accepted by a large number of people as the gospel truth. "Yes, you got caught speeding in a school zone 7 years ago. That makes you not just a speeder, but a trespasser, a shoplifter, a peeping Tom, a jaywalker, and I suspect that you even turn right on red at a no right turn on red sign! YOU ARE EVIL to the core!"

          Is it too much to ask that people stick to the facts? Spygate was real: Taping defensive signals did happen, was admitted, was apologized for, and was SEVERELY punished. Deflategate? Maybe it is a repeat. Maybe nobody involved in the first one was involved in the second one. We don't know all of the facts. But a lot of people make up their facts about all of the other accusations that they assume to be true because someone once verbalized the thought that they might have happened.
          2003 alone carried two instances of why Colts fans hate the Patriots; the infamous "fake injury" game, and the infamous "pass interference" game. In fact, the Colts seem to be on the butt end of New England's shenanigans more often than any other team.

          And we all know that cheaters never get caught 100% of the time, so it makes you wonder what other stuff Belichick has pulled that never came to light.

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I could see your point. But playing Devils Advocate - is there proof that Bill or Tom Brady was in on this? Do we know who within the organization made this happen? Until we know all of this, how can there be a proper punishment handed out? What if it was a ball boy that made this mistake, is it truly fair to punish the entire organization based upon the irrational decision made by a ball boy?

            I honestly don't think it's that simple, but my point is that the situation isn't just black and white. The comparison you made isn't quite apples to apples. In your scenario, Coach Sampson was caught making the phone calls. So it was easy to decide the punishment from there. This man broke the rules, so this man will be punished. Boom, black and white - end of story. But Belichick wasn't directly caught doing something, so it's going to take an investigation to figure out who did what in order to hand out the proper punishment.

            Lastly, while I'm sure some (colts fans I mean) are interested in the integrity of the game and whatnot - I'm not so sure that a lot of this isn't about sticking it to the hated Patriots. Would everyone have the exact same opinions and point of views on the situation if the Colts were behind the scandal? I'm not so sure.
            Yes even if it were a ball boy who made the mistake the organization that seemingly profited from the mistake is responsible. Why wouldn't the ball boy just as soon overinflate the ball. It doesn't matter exactly who it was but does anyone actually believe that this was some innocent mistake?

            Comment


            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              2003 alone carried two instances of why Colts fans hate the Patriots; the infamous "fake injury" game, and the infamous "pass interference" game.
              Actually I've heard more complaints against Manning and Bill Polian for this. There has been plenty of blame that Peyton and Polian has ruined football on the defense side of the ball.
              You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                So the Pats were punished for something that didn't happen, and they just allowed themselves to take that punishment on the chin for good looks or something?
                They were punished for taping defensive signals. That was "spygate", a scandal emerged in September 2007.

                4 and a half months later, two days before the Super Bowl, the brand new unrelated allegation of taping opponent's practices in the 2001 Super Bowl emerged. This one the Patriots were out in front of. They forcefully and bluntly said it never happened. Then indeed they were exonerated from the charge of taping practices by the reporter, and even by the reporter's source that made the accusation in the first place. The allegations were a media storm. The retraction was barely a peep.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-22-2015, 02:49 PM.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I think we have our winner here. This IMO is what happened. My best guess is the ballboys or whoever just knows that is the way Brady likes the balls. Brady doesn't have to say anything it is just known.

                  Also keep in mind the league allows a 1 pound variance
                  Brady doesn't have to say this anymore. Just how do the ball boys know this and has the same ball boy been around Brady's entire career?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    Bill Polian ran the competition committee for a decade, constantly getting them to make changes in rule interpretations and emphasis to favor his own offense. If any one organization bears the lion's share of making today's game the don't-touch-the-QB/pass-interference-happy league that it has become, it was the Polian regime.

                    Speaking of big games, what about the Colts "face-guarding" game? The one where the Colts turned up the heat (well over 80 degrees) after learning that many Patriots players had the flu? The one where the NFL admitted that they made a huge call against the Patriots that was no longer even in the rule book? The link to the Jaxsonville reporter Ketchman's interview with the replay referee Blandino is now broken, but it is summarized in many places, including this one: http://armenianeagle.com/2007/01/27/...uperbowl-spot/

                    “I talked to Dean Blandino in the league office and he confirmed what you’re saying,” wrote Ketchman. (responding to the accusation that face-guarding was called)

                    “Ellis Hobbs should not have been flagged for pass-interference. He didn’t make contact with the receiver and in no way did Hobbs impede Reggie Wayne’s ability to catch the pass."

                    "Blandino confirmed that the incorrect call was made. Referee Bill Carollo made no reference to face-guarding in his explanation, but CBS analyst Phil Simms did. Apparently, he, too, doesn’t know that the rule no longer exists. The next time you hear a TV analyst say, ‘he wasn’t playing the ball,’ think of the Hobbs play, then turn down the sound.”
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-22-2015, 02:52 PM.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      They were punished for taping defensive signals. That was "spygate", a scandal emerged in September 2006.

                      4 and a half months later, two days before the Super Bowl, the brand new unrelated allegation of taping opponent's practices in the 2001 Super Bowl emerged. This one the Patriots were out in front of. They forcefully and bluntly said it never happened. Then indeed they were exonerated from the charge of taping practices by the reporter, and even by the reporter's source that made the accusation in the first place. The allegations were a media storm. The retraction was barely a peep.
                      Probably because they were already to be found conducting illegal videotaping practices. IT would be like Charlie Manson trying to whine that he was accused of a murder, and when he was exonerated there wasn't as much press as the accusation.

                      Most people don't care about the specifics, just the overall point, and the overall point is that the Pats cheated.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Most people don't care about the specifics, just the overall point...
                        So.. facts don't matter. Why bother?

                        As I said earlier, this is akin to saying "Yes, you got caught speeding in a school zone 7 years ago. That makes you in my mind not just a speeder, but a trespasser, a shoplifter, a peeping Tom, a jaywalker, a runner of stop signs, and are unkind to old people". Did you do those things? No. But once a criminal, always a criminal.

                        Gotcha.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          So.. facts don't matter. Why bother?

                          As I said earlier, this is akin to saying "Yes, you got caught speeding in a school zone 7 years ago. That makes you in my mind not just a speeder, but a trespasser, a shoplifter, a peeping Tom, a jaywalker, a runner of stop signs, and are unkind to old people". Did you do those things? No. But once a criminal, always a criminal.

                          Gotcha.
                          Yes, because the difference between illegally video taping a practice and illegally video taping sideline signals is just like the difference between speeding, shoplifting, peeping, and pushing old people down.

                          Facts do matter. Fact is Pats have been caught cheating multiple times. Pointing out that that the Pats didn't cheat exactly like some people think, but rather in a different way, doesn't absolve them of being cheaters.

                          It would be more like "You're a speeder in Indy." and you think the best way to respond is "No I'm not a speeder in Indy" when in reality you got caught speeding in Noblesville. Details.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            So.. facts don't matter. Why bother?

                            As I said earlier, this is akin to saying "Yes, you got caught speeding in a school zone 7 years ago. That makes you in my mind not just a speeder, but a trespasser, a shoplifter, a peeping Tom, a jaywalker, a runner of stop signs, and are unkind to old people". Did you do those things? No. But once a criminal, always a criminal.

                            Gotcha.
                            This isn't even close to an isolated incident, though. To stick with your analogy, it's more like NE committed all of those misdemeanors (speeding, trespassing, shoplifting, etc.) and is now facing their second felony.

                            What else is your explanation for why current and former players and coaches constantly accuse New England of cheating? You don't see other teams get anywhere near this level of hate, and it can't be just jealousy since the Pats haven't even won a Super Bowl in ten years. Hell, New England was basically America's Team in 2001.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Yes, because the difference between illegally video taping a practice and illegally video taping sideline signals is just like the difference between speeding, shoplifting, peeping, and pushing old people down.
                              Yes, I am precisely arguing that secretly watching and taping how a team installs new plays the day before a Super Bowl is nothing at all like openly, visibly, and irritatingly (to the coach who is waving back at you!) recording an assistant coach's hand motions to later figure out their play-calling system (which will change the next time you play them, unless they are dumb).

                              It's not just apples vs. oranges. It is tomatoes vs. pyramids.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X