Maybe I'm mistaken, but you certainly maintained the no 43 into the camp in which they really did make the switch. Either way, you certainly wouldn't let go of the other issues and were wrong on those. Which I am most certainly not holding against you as it comes to your football IQ. I have been more wrong on a lot more things than you. And I get that. In fact, I've probably never been more wrong on anything in my life than Chad Jackson.
My point is you seem to come to each thread with a refusal to admit capability of being wrong. I've conceded points in this thread when someone brought up a valid point. But your Microsoft and other examples were really quite poor, yet you refused to let them go.
That is your issue not mine.
You saying that it is stubborn to not admit that what you expect to happen is wrong when you don't believe it is wrong. Stubborn is refusing to admit it after the fact.
I absolutely will probably never accept I am 'wrong' about my expectation of something unless I am given compelling evidence. Whether that turns out to be a correct or incorrect expectation affects admitting you were wrong after it happened. It is silly to expect someone to admit they are wrong about what will happen in the future. That is a major drawback of this board because people insist on 'proving someone wrong' about something they just do not know.
My examples were fine with regard to the portion of the topic I was discussing. YOU were the one who refused to 'let them go'. I mentioned them ONE TIME, and then countered your outrage about them not being applicable by explaining why I find them to be.
And no, I did not argue they would not switch to a 43 the year they switched to a 43.
I don't understand why as an adult, equipped with knowledge of mathematics and a general common sense, I wouldn't be allowed to harmlessly opine on a messageboard that Tom Brady & Giselle Bunchden are financially comfortable. Yes, I have conceded that specifically, I do not know what Tom Brady would do with $5 million pre-tax, atop his current wealth. He could donate it to Best Buddies. He could buy another property. He could privately want to fly to the moon for all I know. And all of these things would have value to Tom Brady. Yes. Again, I have let go of that. I am not saying that $5 million LITERALLY has no value to him.
Then why is this still going on?
My points were:
1) Saying someone has 'enough' money and does not need more is a myopic view of someone who fails to try to understand that all money has value to everyone.
2) Painting Brady as someone who 'should' take less is unfair to him.
If you are arguing something else, you are arguing with yourself, because this is all I have been discussing.
The fact is, I made an innocuous comment about the Brady-Bunchden wealth and people got upset, probably because it struck a nerve with political or social values they have, not realizing that those values really aren't at all relevant given the context. I wasn't trying to turn this into a social issue. I just care about the football.
No one got upset, unless you did.
If this is your point of view, then accept that I was discussing those 2 points above, and move on, because you do not seem to disagree with them. You seem to be on a mission though to create an argument to attribute to me, or come up with some way to insult me, so you can 'win'.
I find that childish, so go ahead, have the last word, say all the things you want about me. list things I have been wrong about so you can imply no one else is ever wrong. Get your 'win' buddy!!! I'm done.