- Joined
- Feb 27, 2010
- Messages
- 12,084
- Reaction score
- 17,864
You don't think they read the New York Times?
If they don't care about the Ideal Gas Law, which seems to be the case, why would they read the news?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.You don't think they read the New York Times?
If they don't care about the Ideal Gas Law, which seems to be the case, why would they read the news?
You're seriously equating caring about the laws of science with reading an article in the newspaper?
Angry NFL fires back at New York Times story
“The Times has found no direct evidence that the league took its strategy from Big Tobacco.” Despite that concession, the Times published pages of innuendo and speculation for a headline with no basis in fact.
Where have we seen this before?... So it's OK for the NFL to go based on just inference, but not for anyone else. Got it.
The amazing thing is, the leader of that country is less corrupt and more truthful than Goodell.North Korea in 2020!
CTE research proponent: Goodell lying about football's risks
“Goodell’s lying so frequently that I almost don’t think it matters anymore.”
.
Wow, did the NFL even READ that article ?NY Times response to NFL's response:
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(8/8) NFL studies never mentioned that some teams didn't participate. Yet their numbers were included, producing lower concussion rates.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(7/8) "Times insinuates NFL hired Mitchell ... because of experience in tobacco litigation." Article did not say how or why she was hired.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(6/8) NFL says participation in study wasn't mandated. At least one of the papers said it was, in fact, mandated. http://nyti.ms/1T7ZyfQ
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(5/8) "League has never participated in any joint lobbying efforts with Tobacco Institute." Our article did not claim that.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(4/8) "Story claims the league relied on legal advice from Lorillard and Tobacco Institute." Our article did not claim that.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(3/8) "Studies never claimed to be based on every concussion that was reported ..." Studies and peer review statements did claim that.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(2/8) "The Times claims that the concussion studies ... purposely relied on faulty ..." Our article did not claim that.
NYT Sports @NYTSports 3h3 hours ago
(1/8) Our next few tweets will address the @NFL's statement about the article (http://nyti.ms/1T7ZyfQ) we published Thursday morning ...
They're probably banking on people just reading the headlines that the NFL disputes the article.Wow, did the NFL even READ that article ?
He really just needs to stop speaking about events and issues publicly for awhile.Kraft doubles down on being 1 of the 32 :
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 12m12 minutes ago
Kraft was asked about today's NYT report. "Any contact sport...there are going to be concussions...I think the game has never been safer."
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 10m10 minutes ago
Told that the NFL acknowledged the reporting was incomplete, Kraft replied: "Inaccurate. Inaccurate. They just put out a 50-pg reply to it."
Hey Kraft - GO F*CK YOURSELF - the Wells Report was more than 50 pages. BFD.
Kraft just isn't the sharpest blade in the drawer. We won't get our picks back, but the 32 are headed for a big fall.Kraft doubles down on being 1 of the 32 :
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 12m12 minutes ago
Kraft was asked about today's NYT report. "Any contact sport...there are going to be concussions...I think the game has never been safer."
Phil Perry @PhilAPerry 10m10 minutes ago
Told that the NFL acknowledged the reporting was incomplete, Kraft replied: "Inaccurate. Inaccurate. They just put out a 50-pg reply to it."
Hey Kraft - GO F*CK YOURSELF - the Wells Report was more than 50 pages. BFD.
He really just needs to stop speaking about events and issues publicly for awhile.