#Deflategate Symposium w/Stephanie Stradley

[PYPER]

Andrews Kurth Moot Court National Championship

Part 4 is outstanding...Part 3 is off topic and boring...Part 1 & 2 are ehhh

About to start Part 5

Highly recommend you take a look and share on all your social media sites...

@Ian ...I think this video should warrant some consideration in the sticky section.

 

[NashuaPats]

I might have a small crush on Steph.

 

[Joker]

Here's clip 4....the knockout punch...DOWN GOES GOONDELL! DOWN GOES GOONDELL!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Do any of you actually watch and listen to these 90 minute videos?

I skimmed through it in 6-7 minutes. That's all I have the time and patience for

 

[Tony2046]

'What would have happened to a regular guy if he was in Brady's shoes?'

"He would have gotten creamed." ( starts at approx. 1:21:26 in the video)

That has bothered me exponentially more than what happened to Brady. I watched a PR machine build a perception of guilt and feed it to the masses. The masses gobbled up the perceived circumstantial evidence or proof and formed an opinion of guilt despite the science disputing otherwise and despite later learning of dubious actions taken by the NFL (lies during and about Brady's appeal, false claims of an independent investigation etc...). Knowing something was amiss it was still contained within the parameters of the NFL itself and I would have been simply "fan" angry but once deflategate left the confines of the NFL and the CBA and entered into the federal legal system which is the same structure that is to determine my guilt or innocence it became much more about our judicial system. And it failed. That hurts more than Brady's 4 game suspension. I lost confidence in our judicial system.

The lawyer types will state, "Well Tony, once it got to the SC it was no longer about ball deflation etc, rather authoritative powers granted..........blah blah" But unfortunately to a regular Joe, such as myself, an innocent guy got punished for something he didn't do and the SC allowed that to happen. A guy with incredible resources lost to an organization with deeper pockets.

 

[Tony2046]

Do any of you actually watch and listen to these 90 minute videos?

I skimmed through it in 6-7 minutes. That's all I have the time and patience for

And that's why public perception sucks.

"Brady's a cheater"

"Did you read the wells report?"

"No, I skimmed through it"

"Great"

Roger loves skimmers.

 

[jmt57]

And that's why public perception sucks.

"Brady's a cheater"

"Did you read the wells report?"

"No, I skimmed through it"

"Great"

Roger loves skimmers.

One moment I specifically remember in this long-running event was one of BSPN's talking heads (Damien Woody) being asked if he read the Wells Report. Woody laughed and responded 'are you kidding me? No! Did you see how long that is?'

It is understandable for the average fan to not read through all of that; time becomes an issue after working a full time job. But in this case this is a person who is being paid to do just that, to do research for the one hour or so a day that they are on screen. Yet nobody took him to task for the laziness in forming a conclusion based only on one side's biased information.

The reason the Wells report is so long was that they (Wells and the NFL) were counting on very few, even in the media, to take the time to read through it. They new most would not read any of it, and the majority of those that did would read nothing more than the summary.

 

[Nikolai]

One moment I specifically remember in this long-running event was one of BSPN's talking heads (Damien Woody) being asked if he read the Wells Report. Woody laughed and responded 'are you kidding me? No! Did you see how long that is?'

It is understandable for the average fan to not read through all of that; time becomes an issue after working a full time job. But in this case this is a person who is being paid to do just that, to do research for the one hour or so a day that they are on screen. Yet nobody took him to task for the laziness in forming a conclusion based only on one side's biased information.

The reason the Wells report is so long was that they (Wells and the NFL) were counting on very few, even in the media, to take the time to read through it. They new most would not read any of it, and the majority of those that did would read nothing more than the summary.

A few weeks ago, someone (whom I regard as intelligent) wanted to talk Defamegate, and was trying to frame the argument that his take (the Pats/TFB cheated) was the rational take and that I was being the loon. So I asked him, just a couple minutes into the conversation, "did you read the Wells Report?"

He said "no" and commented that he's not that invested into it. Of course, then I told him how I did and brought up a few of the problems in it. At that point, he realized he was out of his depth and let it go.

People can think we're crazy for taking the time to actually read into it, but anyone who has taken the time to research the angles of all this goes armed into any discussion with the authority of knowledge. It's like you're speaking Latin and they're Geico cavemen; or rather, you're playing chess while they're ****ing around with a teething ring.

 

[Tony2046]

One moment I specifically remember in this long-running event was one of BSPN's talking heads (Damien Woody) being asked if he read the Wells Report. Woody laughed and responded 'are you kidding me? No! Did you see how long that is?'

It is understandable for the average fan to not read through all of that; time becomes an issue after working a full time job. But in this case this is a person who is being paid to do just that, to do research for the one hour or so a day that they are on screen. Yet nobody took him to task for the laziness in forming a conclusion based only on one side's biased information.

The reason the Wells report is so long was that they (Wells and the NFL) were counting on very few, even in the media, to take the time to read through it. They new most would not read any of it, and the majority of those that did would read nothing more than the summary.

Exactly. Chris Russo said the same thing and he has a huge audience. They don't care. Ratings ratings ratings. And in the Case of Woody he follows BSPN's agenda to get more airtime. ( "Little boy blew" "He needed the job" OHHHH - Andrew Dice Clay)

Once the Science was challenged by reputable professors (Amicus brief) et al, it was too late. The narrative had already been set in stone.

The NFL could have accused Brady of stealing a million bucks and called him a thief only to later release a report that insinuates that he "more probably than not" stole thirty. No one would ever care and if you brought it up they would simply say, "stealing is stealing".

This isn't just the NFL. You can replace BSPN with MSM or FOX and Roger with any politician and so on. I guess it's the new Twitterverse we live in. #the new integrity

 

[Gumby]

Thanks @Joker for posting Direct Link. Nice video, but obviously has same problem as the Well's report: so long that most posters wont watch-listen to it. (As evidenced by how few replies the thread has)

A couple nice pts:
- [Eric. ~20m] issue "brought out that everybody is a fan, so why dont you think judges are fans too.". . . 'There is a Benefit to getting your version (alternative facts) out first and coloring those fans opinions'.

- [Steph. ~38m] the ONLY direct evidence of ANYTHING is the testimony of the individuals in which they all denied doing anything.

- [ ?? ~51m]. "Until we get to a true independent arbiter with valid subpoena authority, we will never get [in the nfl appeal system] to the level of justice and fairness we have in the civil justice system.

-[eric. ~108m]. "This is the first time we've had an ommissioner Who isnt a lawyer or had a legal background"
Note: Eric, the nflpa guy, didnt seem too energized about them trying to change article 46 (Said: only happens 2-5 times a year).

Steph broke my heart at 1:24m:
"I think in his heart Roger" Gotohell "thinks he was being fair."

I'm truly not sure how you can go through all that evidence and say the above without saying: "He is so delusional that I think . . ." In front.

 

[Koma]

Steph broke my heart at 1:24m:
"I think in his heart Roger" Gotohell "thinks he was being fair."

I'm truly not sure how you can go through all that evidence and say the above without saying: "He is so delusional that I think . . ." In front.

I haven't watched it yet, but maybe the delusion part was implied and Stradley was just being polite

I'm pretty sure that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, still thinks he did the right thing in that situation and he operated in a system where there checks and balances that would reveal he was abusing his authority. There's no election that can take Goodell out of power. There's no outside authority that he answers to. Of course he believes he was fair and his decision was correct. There's no one to tell him otherwise.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I haven't watched it yet, but maybe the delusion part was implied and Stradley was just being polite

I'm pretty sure that Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, still thinks he did the right thing in that situation and he operated in a system where there checks and balances that would reveal he was abusing his authority. There's no election that can take Goodell out of power. There's no outside authority that he answers to. Of course he believes he was fair and his decision was correct. There's no one to tell him otherwise.

Honestly that's a bigger insult to Rog than saying he is purposefully rigging the system. She's saying he's corrupt and too stupid to realize it.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

And that's why public perception sucks.

"Brady's a cheater"

"Did you read the wells report?"

"No, I skimmed through it"

"Great"

Roger loves skimmers.

HOW TO SCREW SOMEONE

If you can't explain to in a couple of tweets, the public will either blow it off or draw the wrong conclusion. So do a scam that's a bit complicated. And repeat your lies over and over again.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

A few weeks ago, someone (whom I regard as intelligent) wanted to talk Defamegate, and was trying to frame the argument that his take (the Pats/TFB cheated) was the rational take and that I was being the loon. So I asked him, just a couple minutes into the conversation, "did you read the Wells Report?"

He said "no" and commented that he's not that invested into it. Of course, then I told him how I did and brought up a few of the problems in it. At that point, he realized he was out of his depth and let it go.

People can think we're crazy for taking the time to actually read into it, but anyone who has taken the time to research the angles of all this goes armed into any discussion with the authority of knowledge. It's like you're speaking Latin and they're Geico cavemen; or rather, you're playing chess while they're ****ing around with a teething ring.

Same thing happened with me. I was speaking with a friend, an avid GB fan, I definitely regard as intelligent. Someone who is not predisposed to emotional statements or thoughts. He brought up Brady and cheating. After a little back and forth I mentioned "Ted Wells" and "Exponent" in a point I was making. His response was "who are they?" (among other items he had zero knowledge of). Bottom line is he was grossly! ignorant on details and facts of "deflategate". It was a surprising development from him.

My suspicion is an otherwise dubious conclusion that becomes repeated as fact over a tangible period of time, the dubious conclusion settles into the thought process as unquestionable, no further consideration needed, fact.

After displaying his gross ignorance I moved to wrap the conversation up quickly by segueing away from it. But I made sure to throw in a confident "you betcha" (a very mild, slightly condescending phrase usage). I see that as one of the only ways to place creeping doubt into such entrenched yet erroneous belief.

 

[shmessy]

Do any of you actually watch and listen to these 90 minute videos?

I skimmed through it in 6-7 minutes. That's all I have the time and patience for

Good point. If you read through this thread, THAT right there is the problem.

The masses are comfortable loudly expressing opinions on subjects of which they have little knowledge because actually investigating the facts before stating ones opinion is "too hard".

Goodall and the NFL owners' strategy all along was centered on exploiting the rampant existence of ADHD in the US population.

 

[WinstonSmith]

...I was speaking with a friend, an avid GB fan...But I made sure to throw in a confident "you betcha" (a very mild, slightly condescending phrase usage). I see that as one of the only ways to place creeping doubt into such entrenched yet erroneous belief.

You should've used the wood chipper, dontcha know...

 

[archstanton543]

Do any of you actually watch and listen to these 90 minute videos?

I skimmed through it in 6-7 minutes. That's all I have the time and patience for

Yes. I have something called an "attention span".

 

[PatriotsReign]

And that's why public perception sucks.

"Brady's a cheater"

"Did you read the wells report?"

"No, I skimmed through it"

"Great"

Roger loves skimmers.

I hear you Tony, but on the scale of life, deflategate isn't too high on most people's list.

I didn't need to read the Wells report to know it was a railroad job. Nor have I found it necessary to defend the Patriots view

 

[PatriotsReign]

Yes. I have something called an "attention span".

So do I, but I'm also an outdoor guy and very active socially. Like I just posted, it's not that important on the scale of life

 

[Danger Zone]

So do I, but I'm also an outdoor guy and very active socially. Like I just posted, it's not that important on the scale of life

And yet you take time out of your busy well adjusted socially active day to inform us how little you care about Deflategate

We thank you!!!