Wellsreportcontext.com

RobertWeathers · Jun 19, 2015

BSR said:
I was wondering why this great article wasn't included. I am thinking because it makes the suggestion that Brady sue the NFL that the Patriots can't put it up.

I think that's a good conclusion to make. If they were to post that article, it would basically be casually promoting that their employee sue them (indirectly as the NEP are part of the 32).

Seeing that Bob picked his side, it's a line he really can't cross back again

RobertWeathers · Jun 19, 2015

sphen22 said:
Just was back at the site and is it just me or is it different with links at the right, Maybe it was due to looking at it on a mobile device the last time.

Oh and after briefly going through it again, can' wait to see Brady opening night.

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

Very interesting indeed.

I hadn't visited it since Bob bent over but clearly he has "ok'd" his people to update it.

Maybe its a measured way of helping TB?

Maybe Bob is hopeful that Brady's efforts lead to Goody rescinding the penalties on the Pats?

It's almost like having a bad fight with someone....you kiss and make up but passive-aggressively still harp on the issue in a non-confrontational way..LOL.

wolverinejoe80 · Jun 19, 2015

they don't proofread?

Roderick MacKinnon is a professer at The Rockefeller University

dales804 · Jun 19, 2015

TheBostonStraggler said:
I think Kraft went to GoDaddy for the .99 cent domain name. Good thing he bought it when he did. The only name left to purchase with 'Ted wells' in it is 'GoFyourself_TedWells.com'

I would have guessed the site may still be up but, basically, abandoned. Assuming it is being updated and it is owned by Kraft, I see this as significant (I assume he would have sanction any continued updating)
Whatever anyone thinks of Kraft, it is probably better for the Brady case that Kraft remains angry at Goodell.

They did get it through GoDaddy on 5/11/15 and their registration expires on 5/11/16. They did, however, register the domain privately through domainsbyproxy.com so people can't find out the details of who owns the domain name.

Here's the Whois info:

Domain Name: WELLSREPORTCONTEXT.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1928053581_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2015-05-11T20:14:25Z
Creation Date: 2015-05-11T20:14:25Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2016-05-11T20:14:25Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: +1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: United States
Admin Phone: +1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: United States
Tech Phone: +1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: NS1.WORDPRESS.COM
Name Server: NS2.WORDPRESS.COM
Name Server: NS3.WORDPRESS.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/

Rob0729 · Jun 19, 2015

I think the fact that this site is still up and being updated pretty much dispells the theory that Kraft backed down because Goodell told him that they had more damaging evidence against the Patriots that he held back to protect the Patriots. If that was the case, Kraft would have pulled the website all together.

The fact that he still has someone updating the website tells me that he still thinks the Patriots and Brady are innocent, but he backed down for the good of the League not because Goodell had more damaging evidence against the Patriots.

RobertWeathers · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
I think the fact that this site is still up and being updated pretty much dispells the theory that Kraft backed down because Goodell told him that they had more damaging evidence against the Patriots that he held back to protect the Patriots. If that was the case, Kraft would have pulled the website all together.

The fact that he still has someone updating the website tells me that he still thinks the Patriots and Brady are innocent, but he backed down for the good of the League not because Goodell had more damaging evidence against the Patriots.

....and he doesn't want Brady missing any games and providing this information might be helpful to his arbitration hearing.

signbabybrady · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
I think the fact that this site is still up and being updated pretty much dispells the theory that Kraft backed down because Goodell told him that they had more damaging evidence against the Patriots that he held back to protect the Patriots. If that was the case, Kraft would have pulled the website all together.

The fact that he still has someone updating the website tells me that he still thinks the Patriots and Brady are innocent, but he backed down for the good of the League not because Goodell had more damaging evidence against the Patriots.

That was always one of the dumber theories anyway.

patsfan13 · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
I think the fact that this site is still up and being updated pretty much dispells the theory that Kraft backed down because Goodell told him that they had more damaging evidence against the Patriots that he held back to protect the Patriots. If that was the case, Kraft would have pulled the website all together.

The fact that he still has someone updating the website tells me that he still thinks the Patriots and Brady are innocent, but he backed down for the good of the League not because Goodell had more damaging evidence against the Patriots.

eom · Jun 19, 2015

BSR said:
I was wondering why this great article wasn't included. I am thinking because it makes the suggestion that Brady sue the NFL that the Patriots can't put it up.

maybe they just missed it

there's a lot of articles and and the internet is pretty big

Rob0729 · Jun 19, 2015

signbabybrady said:
That was always one of the dumber theories anyway.

Hasn't stopped Patriots haters and media people who troll Pats fans (Felger and Mazz) to talk about it as if it is proven fact.

eom · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Hasn't stopped Patriots haters and media people who troll Pats fans (Felger and Mazz) to talk about it as if it is proven fact.

if you notice, the most common attack on the patriots comes from peoples' imaginations, because that can't really be refuted other than telling them to **** off.

Rob0729 · Jun 19, 2015

eom said:
if you notice, the most common attack on the patriots comes from peoples' imaginations, because that can't really be refuted other than telling them to **** off.

Yeah, I got into a fight this week with someone on another board who argued that the Cards hacking into the Astros database is nowhere as bad as the Pats taping the Rams' walkthrough. When I pointed out that it never happened and it was rumor portrayed as fact by Tomase, he said it is 100% true and it was just swept under the rug because Goodell destroyed the tape when Matt Walsh gave it to him. I told him that Goodell destroyed the tapes that Belichick provided him and Matt Walsh told Goodell he had no walkthrough tape (with providing articles to show that), he just called me a gullible Pats fan who believes everything the media tells me (ironic since he believes the false story that John Tomase told in the Herald and eventually retracted and said he was wrong).

eom · Jun 19, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Yeah, I got into a fight this week with someone on another board who argued that the Cards hacking into the Astros database is nowhere as bad as the Pats taping the Rams' walkthrough. When I pointed out that it never happened and it was rumor portrayed as fact by Tomase, he said it is 100% true and it was just swept under the rug because Goodell destroyed the tape when Matt Walsh gave it to him. I told him that Goodell destroyed the tapes that Belichick provided him and Matt Walsh told Goodell he had no walkthrough tape (with providing articles to show that), he just called me a gullible Pats fan who believes everything the media tells me (ironic since he believes the false story that John Tomase told in the Herald and eventually retracted and said he was wrong).

that's basically exactly how it goes.

I really can't distinguish how many of them are trolling us and how many are just idiots

TheBostonStraggler · Jun 20, 2015

eom said:
if you notice, the most common attack on the patriots comes from peoples' imaginations, because that can't really be refuted other than telling them to **** off.

Take away people's imaginations/emotions and media in its present form would diminish significantly (and many politicians would all of a sudden look appallingly inane). The media, again in its present form, would be incompatible with the general public if emotionless logic were one of the dominant filters when absorbing information. Unfortunately the reality is undeniable; when the general public absorbs information from the media, the first and overwhelmingly dominant filter it runs through is the emotion based "oh that <fill in the blank>, I don't like him/her/it!" or "oh that <fill in the blank>, I really like him/her/it" filter. From that point a balanced thought process just isn't going to occur.

OT, IMHO this is one of the biggest problem with a democratic society like ours (certainly the root of many problems). Used Car salesmen types become the de facto information providers/leaders because of their expert way at smoothly informing the general public of either what they want to hear or what they can easily be made to believe. And until there is a change in the general public's 'thought' process (if it actually could happen), the media we have is the media we in general deserve. They aren't doing anything but giving the majority of their customers what they want.

TheBostonStraggler · Jun 20, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Yeah, I got into a fight this week with someone on another board who argued that the Cards hacking into the Astros database is nowhere as bad as the Pats taping the Rams' walkthrough. When I pointed out that it never happened and it was rumor portrayed as fact by Tomase, he said it is 100% true and it was just swept under the rug because Goodell destroyed the tape when Matt Walsh gave it to him. I told him that Goodell destroyed the tapes that Belichick provided him and Matt Walsh told Goodell he had no walkthrough tape (with providing articles to show that), he just called me a gullible Pats fan who believes everything the media tells me (ironic since he believes the false story that John Tomase told in the Herald and eventually retracted and said he was wrong).

Someone once described hell as the impossibility of reason (also a quote from a movie).
When I reach a point in a discussion where the other side's argument clearly shows through as, 'I want the truth to be X, so X absolutely is the truth' (which sounds like the point you were at), the next best words to speak are "so, nice weather we are having". Otherwise you just get deeper and deeper into hell

Joker · Jun 20, 2015

Rob0729 said:
Yeah, I got into a fight this week with someone on another board who argued that the Cards hacking into the Astros database is nowhere as bad as the Pats taping the Rams' walkthrough. When I pointed out that it never happened and it was rumor portrayed as fact by Tomase, he said it is 100% true and it was just swept under the rug because Goodell destroyed the tape when Matt Walsh gave it to him. I told him that Goodell destroyed the tapes that Belichick provided him and Matt Walsh told Goodell he had no walkthrough tape (with providing articles to show that), he just called me a gullible Pats fan who believes everything the media tells me (ironic since he believes the false story that John Tomase told in the Herald and eventually retracted and said he was wrong).

I suggest you stop arguing with RayRay 19....

MagicMarker · Jun 20, 2015

TheBostonStraggler said:
Someone once described hell as the impossibility of reason (also a quote from a movie).
When I reach a point in a discussion where the other side's argument clearly shows through as, 'I want the truth to be X, so X absolutely is the truth' (which sounds like the point you were at), the next best words to speak are "so, nice weather we are having". Otherwise you just get deeper and deeper into hell

I emailed a guy named Stuart Taylor asking his opinion of DeflateGate. You can skip the rest of the post if you like because he doesn't follow football, but Stuart is a lawyer and a journalist. In more than one case he looked at case that had public opinion on one side, researched it and eventually public opinion switched.

The big one was the Duke lacrosse rape case. If you recall there was basically a mob mentality early on. They were guilty, the lacrosse season was cancelled and players were suspended. Everybody knew. Stuart's reporting early on started switching the public opinion.

The other one, although this may draw some political views was the Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton case. The media basically treated her like trailer trash. James Carville made some comment about this is what happens when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park. Stuart reported on it -- she made contemporaneous statements to co-workers and a good deal of her story checked out.

The point is, deflategate is like those two cases. Public opinion is dominant on one side, but the facts supporting the dominant opinion are a bit sketchy.

I don't know how to switch opinion...but if the NFLPA asks for a panel agreed to by both the NFL and the union of statisticians and physicists, the NFL would have to agree (or look like they're hiding something). Then, if that agreed upon unbiased panel were to throw out Wells' findings, I think public opinion would follow.

Mack Herron · Jun 20, 2015

MagicMarker said:
I emailed a guy named Stuart Taylor asking his opinion of DeflateGate. You can skip the rest of the post if you like because he doesn't follow football, but Stuart is a lawyer and a journalist. In more than one case he looked at case that had public opinion on one side, researched it and eventually public opinion switched.

The big one was the Duke lacrosse rape case. If you recall there was basically a mob mentality early on. They were guilty, the lacrosse season was cancelled and players were suspended. Everybody knew. Stuart's reporting early on started switching the public opinion.

The other one, although this may draw some political views was the Paula Jones vs. Bill Clinton case. The media basically treated her like trailer trash. James Carville made some comment about this is what happens when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park. Stuart reported on it -- she made contemporaneous statements to co-workers and a good deal of her story checked out.

The point is, deflategate is like those two cases. Public opinion is dominant on one side, but the facts supporting the dominant opinion are a bit sketchy.

I don't know how to switch opinion...but if the NFLPA asks for a panel agreed to by both the NFL and the union of statisticians and physicists, the NFL would have to agree (or look like they're hiding something). Then, if that agreed upon unbiased panel were to throw out Wells' findings, I think public opinion would follow.

If I recall correctly, in the heat of public outcry Duke fired their the lacrosse coach and the facts coming out did not bring justice for this man. We can hope for the best, but Kraft and the owners have given Goodell power to do what he wants, and he took our draft picks and Kraft conceded. Anything is possible, but regardless of the outcome of Brady's suit, I don't expect Goodell to admit his errors and hand them back, which is what it would take.

Galeb · Jun 20, 2015

TheBostonStraggler said:
Take away people's imaginations/emotions and media in its present form would diminish significantly (and many politicians would all of a sudden look appallingly inane). The media, again in its present form, would be incompatible with the general public if emotionless logic were one of the dominant filters when absorbing information. Unfortunately the reality is undeniable; when the general public absorbs information from the media, the first and overwhelmingly dominant filter it runs through is the emotion based "oh that <fill in the blank>, I don't like him/her/it!" or "oh that <fill in the blank>, I really like him/her/it" filter. From that point a balanced thought process just isn't going to occur.

OT, IMHO this is one of the biggest problem with a democratic society like ours (certainly the root of many problems). Used Car salesmen types become the de facto information providers/leaders because of their expert way at smoothly informing the general public of either what they want to hear or what they can easily be made to believe. And until there is a change in the general public's 'thought' process (if it actually could happen), the media we have is the media we in general deserve. They aren't doing anything but giving the majority of their customers what they want.

Your perspective on how we perceive and that emotion is the chief flaw in our reasoning is inaccurate. The limbic system adds context to our initial perceptions for survival purposes, but by the time we're adults, the filter through which we primarily experience is far more defined by our socialization and brainwashing than pure emotion and the context inserted by the limbic system.

The mind develops shortcuts "i.e. schemas" to make sense of the massive amount of sensory information that we are constantly bombarded with. These "shortcuts" can be very inaccurate and the patterns of behavior we develop and fall into are typically based on these flawed perceptions. Inject ego (a logical construct that attempts to apply permanency to a constantly changing consciousness) into this mix, and the result is something complex and usually quite deluded. It is this complicated, deluded lens through which we experience the world, and of which emotion is just a small part.

The key is to see things as genuinely as possible to prevent false perceptions and head off falling into patterns of behavior. If you doubt my ramblings, research "MBSR" and check out books like "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman or "The Emotional Life of Your Brain" by Richie Davidson. Emotion can cloud thought, but can also be a useful tool in seeing things genuinely.

TheBostonStraggler · Jun 20, 2015

Galeb said:
Your perspective on how we perceive and that emotion is the chief flaw in our reasoning is inaccurate. The limbic system adds context to our initial perceptions for survival purposes, but by the time we're adults, the filter through which we primarily experience is far more defined by our socialization and brainwashing than pure emotion and the context inserted by the limbic system.

The mind develops shortcuts "i.e. schemas" to make sense of the massive amount of sensory information that we are constantly bombarded with. These "shortcuts" can be very inaccurate and the patterns of behavior we develop and fall into are typically based on these flawed perceptions. Inject ego (a logical construct that attempts to apply permanency to a constantly changing consciousness) into this mix, and the result is something complex and usually quite deluded. It is this complicated, deluded lens through which we experience the world, and of which emotion is just a small part.

The key is to see things as genuinely as possible to prevent false perceptions and head off falling into patterns of behavior. If you doubt my ramblings, research "MBSR" and check out books like "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman or "The Emotional Life of Your Brain" by Richie Davidson. Emotion can cloud thought, but can also be a useful tool in seeing things genuinely.

Thanks for the book reference. I fly a lot for my occupation and I am always looking for a good book to kill time while en route (and the laptop battery is dead).

I don't doubt your ramblings.
To clarify my first post a bit, I am not expecting us to drop the emotion and become Vulcan. Save an 'eon' of evolution we probably will always be creatures of emotion (to varying degrees). But I expect/hope the cold hard logic filter -- temporarily suspending much of the emotion -- can be applied regularly. IME most have that filter/the ability to apply it (to think or say 'wait, let's consider this for a minute'). Yet too may people allow that to sit significantly unused in favor of the quicker, simpler emotion/foggy lens filter (I hate X! So X is guilty! End of story! Now put that bastard X in jail and throw away the damn key!). Duke rape and Deflategate are good examples (with many more examples in the context of establishing conventional wisdom/norms of our society). Given the years between Duke rape and Deflategate, it appears little has changed in terms of what filter/lens is dominant.
While the 'clear lens' is the ideal -- getting accurate data from the onset -- is it practical in our modern society where we receive large amounts of remote data? Since the data we are provided is shaped/construed/manipulated by third parties, even if the clear lens is in full effect it still results in a foggy lens conclusion doesn't it?

With that said, except for a few of the underpinnings of the topic as well as my un-clinical clumsy terminology, weren't we saying similar things (or is my lens fogged

?)?

Wellsreportcontext.com

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Pro Bowl Player

Hall of Fame Poster

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Similar threads