Good thing you post here, Bubby!  You offer so much to the board.  You are so knowledgeable.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



wrong again, russ. As stated previously in this thread I'm the first person to admit I know nothing of football and appreciate those who contribute w/ real substance. You see?  I don't have to resort to name calling to prove my point.

thanks for playing again russ, but, again, you lose.

What did I lose?  You have a lot to say for someone who doesn't know football.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



Like I said before...looks like I gotta change my numbers to 1 out of 3.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



Alas, I have nothing to say....lol.
-------

"In Response to Re: Bruschi: Patriots must pay Mankins:


where is your reliable source on this stat? just curious." Bubba
-----
"I don't need a stat to have experience living out of the Boston area for over 10 years and seeing this unfold." RUSS
-----
I interpret this to mean that you're speaking out of your azz again.

So, let's say the following is a "reliable source":http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-HATE-THE-PATRIOTS/183698620985

they claim 100,000 people hate the patriots.  Hmmm, there are about 270 Million adults in the united states....that comes out to .05%.

------
yes, I have nothing to say....cuz u said it all :)

Did you ever hear of the term "generalization" or a figure of speech?  The 90% number is meant to imply a heft majority of people cannot stand NE and are jealous of the dynasty, 16-0 and the continued 10+ win seasons.

I have friends who are not Pats fans who are so jealous, there is no point of mentioning anything Pats related.

Christ, are you thick.

Just stick to whatever it is you are into, if it's not football, tubby.

Tiddly winks, maybe?  Gardening?

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



Russ, again, my humblest apologies.  I completely understand about your statement about "generalizations" as 90% is so very close to .05%.

I am such a loser for not understanding such simple things. YOU GOT ME.

Yes, only .05% of NFL fans hate NE. lol

When you said you knew very little about football, you were absolutely correct.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



Sorry, but again. Those aren't MY numbers....those are from a website of fans who hate the patriots.

It's simple math. There's roughly 307 million people living in the united states. Based on a gallup pole 63% of the US population like football.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1786/more-americans-fans-pro-football-than-any-other-sport.aspx

That means there is roughly 189 Million football fans in the U.S.

Again, the website has 100,000 fans who admit to hating the patriots.

Please show me actual data that shows 90% of the fans hate the Patriots.  Thats another 170 MILLION fans that you need to come up with Russ!!!

Again, where are YOUR numbers to support YOUR statements. Show me the 90%

Yep...yer just makin stuff up. I bet you can't even find outside data that will support your statement of "majority"......

Put up or shut up

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


You should probably consider seeking help or leave that island of yours once in a while and talk to fans who aren't Patriots fans.

A heavy majroity of them mention Spygate within 3 minutes of any football talk and are jealous of the accomplishments, the sustained high quality play,  BB and Brady and the fact they aren't falling off the map.

It drives them fahcking berserk.

Again, it's a figure of speech (90% of non Pats fans).  It's very rare that any non-Pats fan can talk football with a Pats fan without them becoming annoyed at the success and continued success.

When BB retires and Brady is gone, that's when you'll see less of that behavior.

Maybe if you left your house once in a while and actually had a conversation with other humans, you'd understand this.

I'd bet money any Pats fan living outside of NE can vouch for this, too.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


Couldn't find that data, could you.  Thought so.

Now you are flip flopping in the wind.  First you make a statement as if it were fact. Then, you state that it was a generalisation

per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalisation

"3. reasoning from detailed facts to general principles " - hmmm, u fail again because your generalisation was clearly NOT based on any facts.

Now, you're saying it's a "figure of speech".

per wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

The saying "I got your back" almost never has the literal meaning of receipt or possession of another's spine. It is a figure of speech that means the speaker intends to protect the listener, actually or symbolically. It originates from war, in which one soldier informs another that the first will train his weapon toward an area from which an enemy might shoot the second in the back.

Other examples of figures of speech:

• "It's raining cats and dogs" means it's raining intensely.
• "I'll give you a piece of my mind" means the speaker will state a frank opinion.
• "Break a leg" is a saying from theatre meaning "Good luck."
• "Butterflies in your stomach" figuratively describes nervousness.
• "You want a piece of me?" means "Do you want a fight?"
• "You're climbing the ladder to success!" means "You are doing a decent job at trying to achieve success."

You just can't admit that your wrong can you?  Like I said, guess I gotta change my numbers to 1 out of the 3....lol.

Have a great day, Russ :)

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


I get that 90% is hyperbole designed to accentuate the point and wouldn't begin to guess what the actual number might be (although it's probably more than .05%, too), but as a Pats fan in the upper midwest I can tell you from experience that Rusty is actually right about the Spygate thing. Come out in defense of the Pats with Vikings or Packers fan and it's the first thing you hear:"Spygate" this and "cheat" that. It's just normal human jealousy.

On a thread similar to our "Top 5 Most Hated Teams" on the Vikings KFAN board, in 32 responses the Pats were mentioned nine times. I'm not gonna do the math but I think that's about 35 percent. I'd say that's as good a random sampling of a bunch of people just like the people who hang out here, but root for a different team and don't have any rivalry bias, as you're going to get. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes, and people who otherwise couldn't care less got sick of looking at the Pats all over their TV screens for most of the past decade. It's kind of a "sour grapes" scenario. Fan envy. The Vikes have come agonizingly close over and over again, but never won the whole thing . . .   so that they can attach the "Spygate"  caveat to the Pats' success makes them feel better about the fact that their heroes are a bunch of gaggers. 

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


p-mike, I also would agree that it's prolly more than .05% . Even a stupid man like me who knows nothing about football can easily see that the numbers are biased downwards because there is a good chance that not all Patriot haters registered on the website that I referred to. Unfortunately, people as smart as Russ couldn't figure that out....lol

That's the hysterical part about this...

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


Hyperbole is an appropriate word to describe the statement of 90% that Russ used. Basically its an exageration to make a point.

Even at 35% though, doesn't make it a "majority"....I figure 61% (for polls with a 10% error of margin) at a minimum would be considered to meet that kind of criteria...

i'm surprised i wasn't mentioned, haha.

I would guess that roughly 31 out of every 32 NFL fans do not care for the Pats.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


I agree.  This is what we see out there, no doubt. I just thought it was funny Tubby in Hawaii, who proclaims he doesn';t follow the NFL much, is telling everyone this isn't the case and I need to adjust my numbers.

You just can't make this stuff up.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:



First of all, the quote in question was about your use of 90% as a quantitative figure to support your statement that 90% of football fans (who aren't patriot fans) hate the patriots. Nothing more, nothing less. The bottom line is, it isn't a fact, a generalisation, or a figure of speach. Pmike (not draggin you in this, btw) correctly used the term hyperbole to characterize your original statement. Even with PMike's assessment that 35% of the fans hate the Patriots - that's still a far cry from 90%.

On this particular thread, I made zero comments on Spygate.  However, since you brought it up - of course people are going to throw that in our faces cuz it's easy fodder. The fact that the patriots cheated made huge news because it sold papers and ads - not necessarily because the media hates the patriots. Case in point. Tiger Woods was a media darling prior to the news breaking that, in fact, he cheated on his wife. He made the front cover of the NY Post for 30+ straight days detailing his actions. Can we now conclude that the media now hates Tiger Woods? I don't think so.  I think they did it because of the bottom line - NOT because they hate the Patriots.  However, I'm sure that those who are NOT tiger fans will certainly bring up his affairs in a hurry during any discussion.

The fact is, they didn't "cheat".  That's the problem. Explain how distance or position of a camera equates to an advantage.

This is the problem. You're either a troll or you, too, also took the media bait.
 
Roids are a distinct, scientific advantage because it enhances stamina, level of blood flow for sharper vision, etc.  

Corking a bat allows you speed up the bat for hitting a ball easier.

Hiding actual contract values like Denver did in 1997 and 1999, intentionally lying about them to the league to be able to sign more high end FAs, is also cheating.

These are actual advantages that stem from intent and deceit.

If filming, the act itself is legal, explain to us right here and now how it is "cheating".

If you are going to continue to troll, then do it on this thread, but at least explain how it is an advantage, where the intent and/or deceit is, etc.

Finally, Tiger Woods and his slimeball/creepy arranged affairs AFTER he decided to get married, and comparing it to a smear campaign by a jealous rival and subsequent botched handling of a minor rules violation by a Draconian commissioner, is ridiculous.

1.  One shows intent and deceit. The other doesn't.
2.  The media continued to lie about Spygate for 8 months.  This is did not carry on with Tigie's situation whatsoever.  He admitted to his affairs and that was that.
3.  Lies were made up well after NE was punished by Sheriff Goodell.  This also did not occur in the Woods situation.  Woods had adult film stars all over and chose to live his life like that.

Not even remotely the same thing. 

You are flat out wrong.  The media perpetauated Spygate for MONTHS AFTER Goodell punished NE.  And that is because ESPN saw a chance to get revenge on BB and the Pats for not giving the more access during the dynasty years.

Didn't Tom Jackson step out of line, dating back to Sept of 2003?  He lied on live tv.  Flat out lied.

Thanks.

and back to spygate...thank god i managed to stay out of this thread mostly...russ...if you could be more of a doo.sh, your picture would be in the dictionary next to the definition

and alfie...see ya and dont let the door hit ya...

Jimmy don't fret over alfie. Any day now the only person he'll be able to talk to on here will be himself. He's put everyone on ignore that looked at him cross-eyed. You'd think he'd have a thicker skin being a Marine and all, I guess it's just a thicker skull.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:

touche my good man...get in any riding this weekend?

is the hall of fame game here yet? (shrugs)

Thanks and yes we went on what I call a Gilligand (a 3 hour tour) had a brew and rode home.

In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:


As many other patriot fans have already told you numerous times, just because one has a differing perspective than you - doesn't mean they are a troll.

Definition of cheat: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat
to violate rules or regulations:

Answer the following. Did the Patriots violate any NFL rules regarding where they could "legally" videotape? If the answer is yes, then by definition, they cheated. It really isn't any more complicated than that.  In addition, based on previous posts - and even this thread, it's pretty clear that you are confused about the definition of words and terms like facts, generalisations, and figure of speech.

Let's be realistic about what really happened. Mangini snitched on BB and the Patriots. The NFL investigated the situation and concluded that the Patriots did in fact violate a rule.  Even if it was a "common" practice that several other teams were involved in (and there certainly have been coaches who admitted that they did indeed violated the same rule) - the difference is that the Patriots got caught.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the media. And that's okay.  In my opinion, bad news sells - because it makes money for them - not because they care one way or the other about the Patriots. It's called sensationalism.  It's what makes shows like Jerry Springer and any of these reality shows so popular. The point is that the negative media coverage for both the Patriots and Tiger Woods sells papers and ads.

The reason why Spygate continued on was not because of the media's "hate" for the Patriots...it's because it takes time to go through a process of investigating the violation. Tiger's didn't last very long. The Patriots investigation took longer than Tiger's.

Then Goodell decided to burn the tapes.  Hmmm, that certainly raised my eyebrows.

Then Senator Specter got involved. Regardless of his true motivations for becoming involved, the legal/legislative  process is cumbersome and takes time.
Since investigations take time - the announcements of any findings will occur over time. That's the reason why the media attention "lasted longer" for the Patriots.

I can see how you'd like to make things out like people and entities are out to get the Patriots - and that fits your paranoid personality. But it simply ain't so, Joe.

Do you know Goodell destroyed the tapes?  Let's see how educated you are here, Bubby.

This has nothing to do with paranoia.  This has to do with MONEY.  When you grow up and get a job and have a career, you'll see that some day.

The world moves around $$. You got it half right with the media.

Of course it's a story. One created by a jealous rival who utilized an opportunity to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal.

The media perpetuated the story further by not keeping jouranlisitc integrity. It was a disgraceful display.

For the coaches who said they used the procedure, they didn't say they were "admitting" to anything. They simply said, this is a legal procedure they used or didn't use, depending on which coach answered the question. 

If you noticed, which I am sure you didn't, all of the coaches who answered were no longer coaching in the NFL.  That's not a coincidence.

And you can't "get caught" doing something legal where you show no deceit. Get it?


Why didn't Goodell punish the Jets in 2006 in Foxborough? I know the answer, let's see if you do.

Do you even know the words you use here? 

You are so wrong on so many levels here. "Investigation"?  Don't you mean some selfish person seeing an opportunity to make money off it?

Goodell punished NE within 72 hours and every single piece of info BB gave to him checked out.

You seem to claim "an investigation" into a non-story AFTER a punishment had already been levied.

Why the "investigation" for 8 months after the punishment????

Huh? Care to answer that one?

As for the definition of cheat, note the order of each version of the definition.

Note which one is listed #4 and which is #5. Read those again. They are listed in an order for a reason.

THis would apply to NE if they had used the tapes up againns the game that day.  The rule is in place to defend against anyone having access to the game tape, but it doesn't defend against anyone filming something and then emailing it somewhere else to be viewed.

That's the problem with this rule. Why even allow it, if there is this fear someone may see something on a tape that could affect competition in the game THAT day?

Why allow filming?

We have no idea what teams shoot on the Pats during a game. None.

You'll dodge these two above questions, though. That, I am sure of.