Many people have corrected this many times, but somehow, the reasoning still sticks around.
Do you know what a syllogism is?
This seems to be your logic:
The Patriots broke the rules.
Breaking the rules is sometimes cheating.
Therefore, the Patriots cheated.
Lost in this syllogism is the fact that sometimes, breaking the rules is not cheating. Dancing in the end zone is breaking the rules. Ripping into a ref in front of the media is breaking the rules. Releasing an inured player is against the rules. Talking to another team about joining them while you're under contract is breaking the rules.
I don't think any of these constitute cheating.
No advantage is gained. But all of these are incidents of breaking the rules.
Of course, sometimes breaking the rules IS cheating. As when the Broncos paid players over the cap.
Look, Socrates, I don't think they used extra camera gear in contradiction to the letter of the rule book, to have a
worse chance of winning the game.
Don't be a jerk just because we're both among Pats fans. I am willing to take the narrow definition. I am also cognizant that it is
likely that a number of other teams were doing the same thing, and it is a stated
fact that the Jets did the same thing -- a fact swept aside when a) Mangina said he had the Pats' permission (a statement not corroborated by the Pats,) and subsequently b) Goodell said he was not investigating because the Pats did not bring it forward.
The damn incident was what it was, however. I have no desire to argue semantics with you. We did the deed, we owned up, we paid the fines, we lost the draft pick. But your need to pick the definitional fight, while it will yield you a hometown draw on this bulletin board, will yield you nothing of the sort if you are talking to a fan of any other team, or even a casual fan of no team.
My point is: I don't give a damn anymore about any such clowns' opinions. I have no problem conceding the "cheating" point, because I believe that it is so. I do have a problem with the idea that now every a $ $ hat who wants to make an allegation is given credence, and every Senator with a sore loser constituency and a cable company funding his campaigns, will continue to pick the scab.
But guess what? That's just tough titties for me. You can't always get what you want. And while I want the team to be treated fairly by the media, they won't be. Every loser in the league will call us "dirty" one way or another until we aren't a contender.
My point is, it doesn't matter. I want better from the national press, but it's not going to get better. Sure, it takes a toll, and takes (I am sure) even more of one on the coaches and players.
But don't waste your time and tears. That's the image right now.
There's something freeing about realizing that the image is not in control of the team, the players, the coaches, or even the PR guys. They can control what they put out there. They can not control larger pop culture trends.
Trying to make the Pats "not dirty" in the public mind is like wishing that 50s doo-wop music would come back. You might like 50s doo-wop music, but it is immaterial.
PFnV