Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

Here you go:

Belichick said:

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...oli_speak_out/

Originally Posted by pao

Nope, it's not ambiguous.


I just explained to you why it was ambiguous

Because then if Walsh produces a tape you can argue that even though a tape was made the ORGANISATION as a whole never saw it and didn't gain a competitive advantage from it.

So then why was a tape of the walkthrough made at all if absolutely no one in the organization knew about it? Anyone reading that would consider it an ambiguous statement.

I threw that together in two seconds. You're telling me the Pats Publicity dept couldn't have fixed that in the month since this was first announced. Come on.

I presented you with Belichick's actual quote and challenged you to tell me how it was ambiguous, as you stated in the first thread of this post. His quote was a lot more unambiguous than yours. He said he had never heard even mention of an opposing team's walkthrough in all his years of coaching.

I still like mine better. But like I said, I accept BB's comments, there are alot of people that haven't.

I'm not saying he does. And the minutae of "legal argument" is bull crap. The Patriots have a publicist of some sort that would write the correct words.

Again, show me how Belichick's words are ambiguous. You haven't done that yet. You need to do that before portraying your very ambiguous statement as less ambiguous than his unambiguous statement.

And still, I believe my statement, written in two seconds, would have been better for him.

Here we go again. Why is it better? Show me how Belichick's statement is ambiguous.

Dude, I'm not looking for "verbal gamesmanship"! Especially since he is innocent, or so I believe. There is no need for verbal gamesmanship if he is innocent. HIS statement is too easily seen as verbal gamenanship though.
Wow! Do you really believe this? So if Walsh shows up with a tape BB knew about it? Or should have? Man, you better HOPE that Walsh has NOTHING.

Walsh has nothing.


pao

Originally Posted by BradyisGod

Pao.

Please start spelling organization right if you are going to be using it so often as a linchpin to your arguments.

Originally Posted by upstater1

10 characters.

Originally Posted by pao

I'll break it down for you but you'll still disagree. Sometimes people just disagree.

pao

Originally Posted by Hardboiled

I did find this interesting or possibly ambiguous...

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team"

Originally Posted by Hardboiled

I did find this interesting or possibly ambiguous...

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team"