WinstonSmith
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,930
- Reaction score
- 5,074
The prosecution of deflate-gate is totally inappropriate, lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous! You can use the following simple Jackie Chiles debate technique to win any deflate-gate argument.
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
1. Pregame PSI’s weren't properly recorded. Instead the accusing/investigating party relies on an official’s memory that is either faulty or, if properly remembered…exquisite exoneration. What malfeasance, fraudulence, nuisance, unholy fragrance!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
2. Accusing/investigating party relied on subterfuge, deceit, cunning, sting by choosing which gauge best fit their argument while discounting an esteemed official’s best recollection of which gauge he used. If the gauge doesn’t fit (the best recollection) then you must acquit.
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
3. Accusing/investigating party destroys the evidence during half time, which greatly limits the goat’s ability to prove his innocence. Back-up balls were available and the destruction of the evidence was completely unnecessary and uncouth. How convenient, flagrant, conspiratorial, cabal!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
4. The “control group” of Colts’ footballs was limited to a measly 4 balls, either through negligence or worse. Even my 9 year old daughter understands that limiting the control sample to just 4 balls limits your ability to make accurate assumptions when comparing the 2 groups.
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
5. Variance/margin of error/assumptions: The assumptions that were made regarding the temperature, exact timing of when which balls were tested, humidity, how and when the balls were prepped by each team, relative wetness of the balls, what happened to the balls on the field, margin of error of both gauges, and the margin of error of the human element led to an overall significant margin of error which exceeds the small variance of PSI that the accusing/investigating party found when they made every assumption needed to maximize guilt. What the fallopian tubes!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
If there is no actual evidence of a crime then the bathroom break and texts become moot. Sometimes the best murder investigations are ruined when the murder victim is found alive. If there is no actual evidence of a crime then Brady shan’t do the time. Audacious, scandalous, victorious!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
1. Pregame PSI’s weren't properly recorded. Instead the accusing/investigating party relies on an official’s memory that is either faulty or, if properly remembered…exquisite exoneration. What malfeasance, fraudulence, nuisance, unholy fragrance!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
2. Accusing/investigating party relied on subterfuge, deceit, cunning, sting by choosing which gauge best fit their argument while discounting an esteemed official’s best recollection of which gauge he used. If the gauge doesn’t fit (the best recollection) then you must acquit.
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
3. Accusing/investigating party destroys the evidence during half time, which greatly limits the goat’s ability to prove his innocence. Back-up balls were available and the destruction of the evidence was completely unnecessary and uncouth. How convenient, flagrant, conspiratorial, cabal!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
4. The “control group” of Colts’ footballs was limited to a measly 4 balls, either through negligence or worse. Even my 9 year old daughter understands that limiting the control sample to just 4 balls limits your ability to make accurate assumptions when comparing the 2 groups.
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
5. Variance/margin of error/assumptions: The assumptions that were made regarding the temperature, exact timing of when which balls were tested, humidity, how and when the balls were prepped by each team, relative wetness of the balls, what happened to the balls on the field, margin of error of both gauges, and the margin of error of the human element led to an overall significant margin of error which exceeds the small variance of PSI that the accusing/investigating party found when they made every assumption needed to maximize guilt. What the fallopian tubes!
If there was no crime then Brady shan’t do the time.
If there is no actual evidence of a crime then the bathroom break and texts become moot. Sometimes the best murder investigations are ruined when the murder victim is found alive. If there is no actual evidence of a crime then Brady shan’t do the time. Audacious, scandalous, victorious!
