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

    Anyone need a job? I bet there will be an open position shortly.

    Now Hiring Equipment Manager...


    •Coordinates with coaches to determine team's equipment needs and variations, design of new uniforms, and the like.

    •Selects vendors and purchases sporting equipment and uniforms.

    •Administers policies and procedures for department.

    •Establishes the schedule of activity related to preparation of facilities for team practices and contests.

    •Attends or schedules staff to attend all home athletic events and travels with athletic teams to "away" competition; ensures all equipment needs are met at sporting event.

    •Maintains inventory of all sporting equipment and supplies.

    •Fits or monitors fitting of athletic equipment to ensure athletes receive appropriate equipment.
    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

      Just for the record, I've played basketball all my life, but by no means a professional, like say a Tom Brady. However, I can tell if a basketball needs air in two dribbles and a squeeze. I'm pretty sure Brady can tell the same with a footbal with one throw....

      Comment


      • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        And then you spend the next two pages trying to punch holes in the accusations, instead of simply agreeing it was cheating.....
        No, I listed 6 other things, all having NOTHING to do with spygate, that are on the laundry list of supposed "cheating" and that are either KNOWN to be untrue or that are simply impossible.

        For your convenience I even numbered them one through six! http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1955552

        I repeat, Spygate was awful and they got what they deserved. They admitted it, never denied anything that was done, apologized, were severely punished, and rightfully so.

        Interestingly, in Spygate they never had anything REMOTELY like the two press conferences that we saw yesterday.
        The only events at all resembling yesterday's events were the strong denials by the Patriots the day before the 2007 Super Bowl that the taping of any Ram's practice was something that simply did not happen. They were proven correct, only after that huge fabricated distraction had perhaps served its intended purpose and the Patriots went down in defeat.

        If this underinflation charge is a second cheating incident, I will be very disappointed. My point, which zoomed right over your head, is that this would not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th incident but rather the second one.

        How can that not be clear?
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-23-2015, 11:11 AM.
        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
          All of the ex-players bashing Tom are repeating the same MISINFORMATION over and over and over again. They keep saying that there is "no way" that he would not be able to tell the difference between an under-inflated football and a normal one and that he somehow said that he cannot.

          BUT TOM DID NOT SAY THAT he could not tell the difference between two footballs inflated differently, whether they were side-by-side there for him to grip and analyze 5 hours before a game, or even if he had two footballs in front of him right now, for that matter.


          What he ACTUALLY said was that DURING THE GAME ON SUNDAY NIGHT he didn't notice the difference between the 2nd half footballs and the ones that he played with 20 minutes or so earlier, before halftime.

          Why not? HE EVEN SAID WHY NOT!


          Because in a game he is laser-focused on doing his job, thinking about the plays, the defense and where the pass rushing is coming from, the game plan, lining up everyone right, the snap count, possible audibles, etc. Squeezing the ball after the snap to test the feel of the football is just not on his radar at that particular place and time. And it would not be.


          It is maddening that these critics could not even LISTEN to that.


          Here is an example: I can tell you that I have a mild headache right now. If I were upon on a podium delivering a speech, though, I'd be thinking about WHAT I WAS DOING, my notes, the time left, my next point, etc. and would not be focusing at all on, or even NOTICING, whether I had a mild headache or not.


          Is it really THAT hard for these guys to understand?
          I think what the media is calling Brady out on is the fact that he's professed a preference for under-inflated balls in the past. If he can't tell that the balls are under-inflated then how can he have a preference for them?

          Comment


          • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            No, I listed 6 other things, all having NOTHING to do with spygate, that are on the laundry list of supposed "cheating" and that are either KNOWN to be untrue or that are simply impossible.

            For your convenience I even numbered them one through six! http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1955552

            I repeat, Spygate was awful and they got what they deserved. They admitted it, never denied anything that was done, apologized, were severely punished, and rightfully so.

            Interestingly, in Spygate they never had anything REMOTELY like the two press conferences that we saw yesterday.
            The only events at all resembling yesterday's events were the strong denials by the Patriots the day before the 2007 Super Bowl that the taping of any Ram's practice was something that simply did not happen. They were proven correct, only after that huge fabricated distraction had perhaps served its intended purpose and the Patriots went down in defeat.

            If this underinflation charge is a second cheating incident, I will be very disappointed. My point, which zoomed right over your head, is that this would not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th incident but rather the second one.

            How can that not be clear?
            Because I'm not talking about spygate?

            You've spent your posts over the last two pages trying to discredit the accusations, like pointing out that DQwell said he didn't notice anything off about the footballs. Whether it was Dqwell, or the Colts equipment manage noticed, it really doesn't matter.

            I think you using the word "If" shows exactly my point. There's no "if." The balls have been proven to be underinflated. Unless you think that the Colts sideline was warmer, and one football doesn't follow the law of thermodynamics, it was clearly intentional.

            Not to mention thermodynamics wouldn't have deflated the ball that much, so it even clearer that it was intentional.
            Football physics and the science of Deflategate
            Of course, the temperature difference involved was a little extreme — from about 68F in my office, down to about -10F in the freezer. So, you can use temperature changes to produce the pressure change seen by investigators, but the temperature required would’ve matched the legendary Ice Bowl of 1967. Last Sunday’s game was played in pouring rain at about 50F, so unless they did the pre-game testing of the balls in a sauna, or the post-game investigation in a meat locker, thermodynamics alone can’t get the Patriots off the hook.
            http://theconversation.com/football-...lategate-36581
            Last edited by Since86; 01-23-2015, 11:21 AM.
            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
              No, I listed 6 other things, all having NOTHING to do with spygate, that are on the laundry list of supposed "cheating" and that are either KNOWN to be untrue or that are simply impossible.

              For your convenience I even numbered them one through six! http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1955552

              I repeat, Spygate was awful and they got what they deserved. They admitted it, never denied anything that was done, apologized, were severely punished, and rightfully so.

              Interestingly, in Spygate they never had anything REMOTELY like the two press conferences that we saw yesterday.
              The only events at all resembling yesterday's events were the strong denials by the Patriots the day before the 2007 Super Bowl that the taping of any Ram's practice was something that simply did not happen. They were proven correct, only after that huge fabricated distraction had perhaps served its intended purpose and the Patriots went down in defeat.

              If this underinflation charge is a second cheating incident, I will be very disappointed. My point, which zoomed right over your head, is that this would not be the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th incident but rather the second one.

              How can that not be clear?
              This would be the second cheating incident, but not the second incident in which the Pats have done something that people frown upon. That's why this has spawned so much vitriol.

              Comment


              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                We have a Chicago Bears ball attendant saying with perfect clarity to NBC that the NFL is lying about the rigor of their pregame ball inspection process.

                The NFL has us believe that 2 hours and 15 minutes before game time the home team delivers to the ref a dozen game balls and a dozen backups, the visitors do the same, and the 12 kicking balls are also prepped by the ref. He takes 60 footballs, one at a time, and ensures with a pressure gauge that each one is precisely between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. Then he dutifully returns the game balls them to the ball attendant, who distributes them to the ball boys a few minutes before kickoff.

                This particular experienced veteran ball attendant says that he never recalls any instances where any football failed to pass inspection. There is good reason: in his YEARS of doing his job, almost all of the time he witnessed the ref just squeezing, approving, and then initializing the game balls without checking them with a gauge. Any why not? He knows what a football is supposed to feel like, and he is not so eager to spend a half hour testing 48 possible game balls when he also has to do all of the work on the kicking balls.

                NBC seems to have buried this interview, and as the super bowl network it is clearly tough for them to make the NFL look so bad.

                But this has been the most simple, plausible explanation from day 1: the first check of all the game footballs, using a pressure gauge, was at halftime. It is supposed to happen pregame, but it is up to the ref to take the time to do it. Will the ref cover his behind and insist that he did follow written protocol? Most likely.

                There is no proof of this alternative explanation, and I am not saying that there is. There is also no proof of the other theory, that some specific guy from the Patriots, who we can conclusively identify by name, let some air out of 11 footballs, and we know how, when, and where that he did it (despite the Colts apparently telling the league in advance to look for it!)

                I suspect that Goodell will decide that we don't know what happened, that probably the Patriots did something wrong, and will fine the team as a whole and take away a draft pick. But if he wants to lay the hammer down on any one guy, say Tom Brady, there had better be some conclusive evidence of wrongdoing specifically on his part. How in the world is that unreasonable?
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 01-23-2015, 11:38 AM.
                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

                  Perhaps I mis-read the article this morning, but I thought the ballboy last worked in like 2003. Perhaps things changed since then?

                  ________________

                  As to the point with Dallas and Blandino, that was heavily talked about. Maybe I just followed it more closely because I am a Redskins fan, but Blandino even came out in a NFL statement and said that one had no bearing on the other. He was called out by several national media outlets and he actually issued a second denial (cant remember if it was a PC or just on his twitter account) saying people can believe what they want but that they were not related to each other

                  So I think its hard to say with a straight face the NFL did not take heat for that. Not to mention the Cowboys were knocked out the very next game. Now if they had advanced I bet the story would have gained even more traction.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                    Dunkin Donuts is a sponsor of the New England Patriots. So rival Krispy Kremes came up with this nice little jab:


                    Fully filled #DeflateGate

                    https://twitter.com/krispykreme/status/557920121532870656/photo/1
                    Last edited by vapacersfan; 01-23-2015, 11:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      There's no "if." The balls have been proven to be underinflated.
                      According to unnamed, anonymous sources. Show me a statement from the NFL with somebody's name on it. You cannot.

                      Some of these same unnamed anonymous sources have also told us things that we can verify are untrue. Like the Patriots deflated the Ravens kicking balls, that Jackson noticed the ball was soft, that balls are given to the team 2 hours before the game... need I go on?

                      Until the NFL breaks their silence there will be anonymous sources, some false, and we essentially are all just guessing
                      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

                        https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/A589B...kDTAJRKOBv1Q.F

                        Comment


                        • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                          Perhaps I mis-read the article this morning, but I thought the ballboy last worked in like 2003. Perhaps things changed since then?
                          Until 2006 the home team supplied the game balls, 12 of them & 12 backups, that were to be used by both teams. At that time, after lobbying started by Peyton Manning and subsequently supported by Tom Brady, they changed procedure so that each team provided their own footballs for inspection & in-game use. Inspection procedures, regulations, and the kicking ball policies did not change. Merely the work of the ref was doubled in 2006, with the ref now getting sets of game balls from each team.
                          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
                            According to unnamed, anonymous sources. Show me a statement from the NFL with somebody's name on it. You cannot.

                            Some of these same unnamed anonymous sources have also told us things that we can verify are untrue. Like the Patriots deflated the Ravens kicking balls, that Jackson noticed the ball was soft, that balls are given to the team 2 hours before the game... need I go on?

                            Until the NFL breaks their silence there will be anonymous sources, some false, and we essentially are all just guessing
                            http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id...mpionship-game

                            The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots' 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL's requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday's AFC Championship Game told ESPN.
                            Do you really think the NFL is going to let the media come out and say they came to a conclusion that they didn't?

                            I know the Pats are your team and all but you're reaaaaaallllyyy reaching here.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              According to unnamed, anonymous sources. Show me a statement from the NFL with somebody's name on it. You cannot.

                              Some of these same unnamed anonymous sources have also told us things that we can verify are untrue. Like the Patriots deflated the Ravens kicking balls, that Jackson noticed the ball was soft, that balls are given to the team 2 hours before the game... need I go on?

                              Until the NFL breaks their silence there will be anonymous sources, some false, and we essentially are all just guessing
                              Two can play this game.

                              Show me a statement from the NFL saying they're untrue. I'm going to go by your standards. Nothing short of an official NFL statement refuting it.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Colts vs Pats AFC Title Game

                                Fine!

                                When we have independently verifiable facts with names attached, the truth is crystal clear.

                                Unless Jackson is lying, unless the NFL's own written rules about how kicking balls are handled are made up , and unless the NFL's own written rules about how game balls are handled are made up, the three (since disproven) allegations previously attributed to unnamed sources that I mentioned must be false.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X