OT: NFL Suspends Donks DB Kareem Jackson 4 Games

[captain stone]

Not sure if it was poste elsewhere but Jackson's suspension reduced to 2 games.

But he still misses the Queefs game? DAMN

 

[Kontradiction]

Yes, they do. In every walk of life.

Stock market, crime patterns, people as they grow older. In every walk of life, past performance does not predict future behavior. You’re either trolling with this one or you’re terribly informed.

where is the hit? head/neck area. he literally ran right at him, had more than enough time to avoid that type of collision. Thanks for posting the pic to make my point.

The shoulder is ahead of the helmet which is to the side of the receiver. Look at it. Look at it again. Look at it once more. There is no intent.

This isn't the meme thread.

Nope. The Meme Thread is a display of higher IQ than this one has been, thus far.

I didn't make this personal.

Out of the two of us, which one brought up the fact that the other person was supposedly “angry” first? That would be you. So, no, I didn’t make it personal first. You did. I just responded in kind.

You did. and again, more deflection. control and anger issues cropping up again i see. thanks for proving the first response in this reply all over again.

And here, you seem to contradict yourself. But thanks for admitting you made it personal first. I haven’t even begun to go personal yet. My advice was just a recommendation. This isn’t healthy.

no, its a discussion board. yes no answers are designed to what? elicit a preferred response.

No they’re not, lmao. If you can’t answer a yes or no question because it defeats your point, it means your point is trash.

You’ll either have to argue that every tackle of his has malicious intent, or it doesn’t. You even admitted that not every tackle has that intent, hence you’ve agreed with me.

Again more control issues come up as you try to frame the narrative to your liking.

There is no “narrative” outside of some of his hits being the dirty head-hunting type, and some of his hits just being big hits. Once again, you’ve already conceded this. That tells me you’re dying on this hill either out of boredom, or to escape the pain (momentarily) of your daily existence the last few years.

Finish me off? When making the observation across the whole body of work, you look at whats relevant.

Which is what I did. Some hits are dirty. Some hits are just big hits. The hit against Green Bay was clearly the latter.

And its those types of hits that you want to focus on. Is he targeting the head and neck area of defensless players (ie head hunting) some of the time? All of the time? Or is it a minority of the time? Then you ask is it acceptable? Well this year thru 7 games thats 5 or 6 hits to the head and neck area of players. Compare that to the number of times it occurs inside of that position group.

Cool. The hit against Green Bay was to the chest. The head snapped back because of physics.

Or use common sense.

I have. Common sense tells you that, if you can’t even admit yourself that every hit of his is dirty, then not every hit is dirty. Each hit should be looked at on its own merits (what I’m doing) instead of making a blanket judgment (what you’re doing).

He's considered a dirty player because he does bad ****.

I’ve never said he wasn’t a dirty player. You wouldn’t be trying to set up a straw man because you’re getting your ass kicked, would you?

Because he goes after guys heads.

Never claimed he didn’t do this, either.

Ask Brandon Meriwether.

No. But while we are on the topic, do you have any posts of yours you can find where you similarly condemned Meriweather or Rodney? Or is this blanket judgment only applicable when it’s a player on a rival?

He did the same thing, and had the same dirty rep. When that happens you dont get the benefit of the doubt.

Have you not been reading my posts? Of course you haven’t. You’re arguing before understanding. If you had been reading, you’d see this has been my whole point. The moronic league, whose authority you hilariously appealed to, punished him based on past transgressions and not because the latest hit had clear intent.

Im not agreeing with you.

You already have agreed with me. Multiple times. In just the last few sentences above, you agreed with me.

The simple fact of the matter is I have not, and will, not go back and look thru 14 years of Kareem Jacksons career. If you want to, be my guest.

So how and why are you making a blanket judgement if you haven’t even gone back and looked? That seems pretty dumb.

He came in from the backside of that play. He had the time to alter his trajectory if he so desired. He didnt. Thats why its a dirty hit.

1) He’s a safety. Of course he came in from the backside of the play.

2) Less than a second is enough time to alter his angle? Do an exercise. You can watch the above video as many times a day as you’d like until one of two things happen - the apocalypse or the NFL removing the video. Once the receiver catches the ball, count. You won’t even get through “one, one thousand). Catch is made, Jackson already has him lined up, leads with the shoulder first, and the Packer player turns around after securing the ball.

Literally none of what you just claimed has any basis in reality. Once again, I’m not sure why you’re so willing to die on such a ridiculous hill.

Its a message board.

That’s not a great excuse for wasting both of our time when you’ve already conceded my point three different times now.

And its not me thats getting upset, though, clearly you are seeing how desperate your post comes across trying to repeatedly claim victory. (point 1, again - Past behavioral patterns being indicative of future behavior.)

I think you walk around upset, daily. I understand why, too. We’ve all lived in this world the last two decades. I think we all need therapy. Those who lost someone especially need therapy. It’s a legitimate solution to your problems.

As for the last sentence? God, I’m dying to make that one political with a certain subset of the population just so I can watch you contradict yourself and contort yourself into pretzels trying to justify that so-called “point” when applying it to something else besides football. That would be comedy gold. I love making people realize that they, too, have bigoted views.

 

[Pape]

Stock market, crime patterns, people as they grow older. In every walk of life, past performance does not predict future behavior. You’re either trolling with this one or you’re terribly informed.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Stock market is a very good example of past patterns indicating future activity. Crime? I guess the idea recidivism is just a theory? In every walk of life, it does. Its incomprehensible that you dont understand this basic concept.

The shoulder is ahead of the helmet which is to the side of the receiver. Look at it. Look at it again. Look at it once more. There is no intent.

There is always intent. What was his intent? To hit the receiver as hard as possible. Which in and of itself is part of the game. What isnt part of the game and why he got a flag thrown, ejected him and subsequently fined was because he went high towards the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This is easy stuff to parse.

Nope. The Meme Thread is a display of higher IQ than this one has been, thus far.

Is that because people don't disagree with you and clap you on the back and say you're a funny guy?

Out of the two of us, which one brought up the fact that the other person was supposedly “angry” first? That would be you. So, no, I didn’t make it personal first. You did. I just responded in kind.

Just stop. You tried to malign my response with the "appeal to authority" line, Straight out of the Charlie Kirk/Ben Shapiro playbook.

And here, you seem to contradict yourself. But thanks for admitting you made it personal first. I haven’t even begun to go personal yet. My advice was just a recommendation. This isn’t healthy.

Again, more of the same "i need to be right, i need to control the moment", again reinforcing past behaviors are indicative of future actions. Its soooo predictable coming from you. As bad as Andy you can be. Just can't let it go...

No they’re not, lmao. If you can’t answer a yes or no question because it defeats your point, it means your point is trash.

It means you wanted a simple yes or no answer to a question you set up to "prove your point", to control the argument. Again, past behavior...

You’ll either have to argue that every tackle of his has malicious intent, or it doesn’t. You even admitted that not every tackle has that intent, hence you’ve agreed with me.

I have to do no such thing. By trying to enforce that particular parameter, again you are trying to control the narrative to your liking. And not every tackle is, but when he goes high towards the head and neck area, yeah it needs to be looked at and judged. Why? Because of his history.

There is no “narrative” outside of some of his hits being the dirty head-hunting type, and some of his hits just being big hits. Once again, you’ve already conceded this. That tells me you’re dying on this hill either out of boredom, or to escape the pain (momentarily) of your daily existence the last few years.

There is no narrative besides his apparent desire to go head hunting. And when he does, it needs to be scrutinized.

Which is what I did. Some hits are dirty. Some hits are just big hits. The hit against Green Bay was clearly the latter.

Or the former.

Cool. The hit against Green Bay was to the chest. The head snapped back because of physics.

Chest is the numbers plate. Clearly much higher than that. Thanks to you we can go look at the pic.

I have. Common sense tells you that, if you can’t even admit yourself that every hit of his is dirty, then not every hit is dirty. Each hit should be looked at on its own merits (what I’m doing) instead of making a blanket judgment (what you’re doing).

Common sense tells me you are so angry at this point you are unable to see anything clearly. So dug in, because you gotta be right... ego can't handle it when you aren't.

I’ve never said he wasn’t a dirty player. You wouldn’t be trying to set up a straw man because you’re getting your ass kicked, would you?

If I wanted to set up a strawman, I would literally say so. There is no need to do that in this instance because his reputation and hostory of head hunting pretty much says it all.

Never claimed he didn’t do this, either.



No. But while we are on the topic, do you have any posts of yours you can find where you similarly condemned Meriweather or Rodney? Or is this blanket judgment only applicable when it’s a player on a rival?

No, I dont.

Have you not been reading my posts? Of course you haven’t. You’re arguing before understanding. If you had been reading, you’d see this has been my whole point. The moronic league, whose authority you hilariously appealed to, punished him based on past transgressions and not because the latest hit had clear intent.

The league punished him in order to literally get him to stop going to the head & neck areas when making a tackle. Fining him near $100,000 this season alone hasn't worked.

You already have agreed with me. Multiple times. In just the last few sentences above, you agreed with me.

ooooo you just gotta be right... it must hurt so bad. I am completely baffled how you don't /or are unable to differentiate that agreeing with minor points - such as not every hit in his career is in fact dirty - does nothing the strengthen your argument.

So how and why are you making a blanket judgement if you haven’t even gone back and looked? That seems pretty dumb.

That statement is pretty dumb. I mean, really. Heres a strawman for you ... I know vontaze burfict was a dirty player. I dont need to see every tackle in his career to know that because the evidence i have seen is compelling enough to form an opinion.

1) He’s a safety. Of course he came in from the backside of the play.

2) Less than a second is enough time to alter his angle? Do an exercise. You can watch the above video as many times a day as you’d like until one of two things happen - the apocalypse or the NFL removing the video. Once the receiver catches the ball, count. You won’t even get through “one, one thousand). Catch is made, Jackson already has him lined up, leads with the shoulder first, and the Packer player turns around after securing the ball.

Yes. It is. he is more than 5 yards away. He absolutely had time to alter the angle of his hit. Stunned you can look at that and think otherwise.

Literally none of what you just claimed has any basis in reality. Once again, I’m not sure why you’re so willing to die on such a ridiculous hill.

Yet, I get why you are on that hill, swinging away, defending a guy like Kareem Jackson...

That’s not a great excuse for wasting both of our time when you’ve already conceded my point three different times now.

Its not? Well honestly, its not an excuse. Its a fact. Thats what its here for. and yet again, another comment about up "winning"... Do I even need to say it anymore?

I think you walk around upset, daily. I understand why, too. We’ve all lived in this world the last two decades. I think we all need therapy. Those who lost someone especially need therapy. It’s a legitimate solution to your problems.

And I think you walk around with an ego the size of the good year blimp, and your world is always centered around control...

As for the last sentence? God, I’m dying to make that one political with a certain subset of the population just so I can watch you contradict yourself and contort yourself into pretzels trying to justify that so-called “point” when applying it to something else besides football. That would be comedy gold. I love making people realize that they, too, have bigoted views.

Please do. Make it political. Go for it.

I'm not the type to go running to Ian. I won't get you shut down. Be the Hero in your own world.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Can you imagine Kelce getting popped by this guy? Swift melting down in the skybox. I guess the league couldn't take a chance.

 

[Kontradiction]

I can see the white flag beginning to rise right up the mast. This is already over. Your pride is the only thing keeping you posting. And within an hour of my post, too? Tell me again about how you’re not using this board as a therapy device…

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Awesome. Right off the bat, you blow up your whole “past patterns indicate future activity” stance. If we learn from history, we don’t repeat it.

Stock market is a very good example of past patterns indicating future activity.

You could have just said you don’t know anything about the stock market. I hope you have someone else handling your investments or you’ll never retire.

If you had looked at Apple’s past performance in 1980, you’d assume they would continue to be nothing.

Disney says “hi.”

How many examples would you like? Most people without a business degree or a finance degree know that past performance doesn’t indicate future returns.

Crime? I guess the idea recidivism is just a theory?

The recidivism rate isn’t 100%. You’ve just proved my point.

In every walk of life, it does. Its incomprehensible that you dont understand this basic concept.

It’s incomprehensible to me that you still believe you’re right on this one when you cannot even provide any evidence to back your claim. But keep painting with a broad brush if it makes you feel better.

There is always intent.

Sure. But there isn’t always malicious intent, which you, yourself, have already admitted.

What was his intent? To hit the receiver as hard as possible. Which in and of itself is part of the game. What isnt part of the game and why he got a flag thrown, ejected him and subsequently fined was because he went high towards the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This is easy stuff to parse.

Right. We know the league office never ****s one up. He got ejected and suspended because of his past behavior. That hit was not dirty. Just hard.

Is that because people don't disagree with you and clap you on the back and say you're a funny guy?

Nah. It’s just pictures. Not some lonely dude who uses this board as a therapy device arguing for the sake of argument. This is a low IQ argument that you’re making. That’s why you’re getting demolished. But it’s good that you’re getting your feelings out. I just wish you would do it with a qualified professional.

Just stop. You tried to malign my response with the "appeal to authority" line, Straight out of the Charlie Kirk/Ben Shapiro playbook.

But you DID appeal to an authority. What is this, if not an appeal to authority?

i saw your post. I disagree. and apparently, so does the league.

You appealed to an authority who didn’t even know what the Ideal Gas Law was. Either that, or they did and they ignored it. Not a great way to start things, and they’ve only gotten worse for you since.

Again, more of the same "i need to be right, i need to control the moment", again reinforcing past behaviors are indicative of future actions. Its soooo predictable coming from you. As bad as Andy you can be. Just can't let it go...

I don’t need to be right. I just know when I am and when my opponent isn’t. When they know it, and you clearly do, but they refuse to admit it and want to die on a hill instead, I get a kick out of driving them insane. I’m merely obliging you.

It means you wanted a simple yes or no answer to a question you set up to "prove your point", to control the argument. Again, past behavior...

Not at all. I wanted to show you that your logic isn’t adding up. That’s why they are used in a cross-examination. They’re effective in either proving or disproving a point, or someone’s logic. Look at what it is doing to you. It completely destroyed your argument and backed you into a corner where you’ve agreed with me on 3 separate occasions. Now, your flailing away… trying desperately to land a point.

I have to do no such thing. By trying to enforce that particular parameter, again you are trying to control the narrative to your liking. And not every tackle is, but when he goes high towards the head and neck area, yeah it needs to be looked at and judged. Why? Because of his history.

Sure you do. If you can argue that something is taking place with a much bigger sample size, you can also do it with a smaller sample size. But you can’t. Because you’ve already admitted that not every tackle of his has malicious intent. You also tacitly admitted that not every big hit of his has malicious intent. Now you’re cornered. Know how you can tell? You’re on an island trying to argue that the blow wasn’t to the receiver’s chest when you have photographic evidence showing you that it was.

There is no narrative besides his apparent desire to go head hunting.

Sometimes. Not all the time.

And when he does, it needs to be scrutinized.

I agree. That wasn’t the case against the Packers, though.

Or the former.

If it makes you feel like you’ve gotten a small win in this back-and-forth, I hope you believe that.

Chest is the numbers plate. Clearly much higher than that. Thanks to you we can go look at the pic.

We can…



That is, quite clearly, the chest area. Not the head area. Not the neck area. In case you’re still confused, let’s look at another angle…



So, since we have already established that the chest area is the numbers plate, would you be so kind as to tell me where Jackson’s shoulder pad is?

Common sense tells me you are so angry at this point you are unable to see anything clearly. So dug in, because you gotta be right... ego can't handle it when you aren't.

I’m not angry at all, my guy. I have a good life. People who have seen pics of me, my wife, my kids can all tell you that. I can tag them if you wish. I have a good job that affords me a great life, I live a couple of blocks from the beach, I have a good work/life balance, my wife is good looking and has the sex drive of a woman in her mid-30s (which I am enjoying) and I have two beautiful, healthy kids. What is there to be angry about?

I’m not angry. You’re just reading my posts through angry eyes, and the information is being relayed to an angry brain. That’s your problem, not mine. I’ve told you how you can better handle it. But I can only lead the horse to water.

If I wanted to set up a strawman, I would literally say so.

No, you wouldn’t. How do I know that? You just tried to accuse me of arguing that Jackson isn’t a dirty player. That’s a straw man argument. Why didn’t you tell me?

There is no need to do that in this instance because his reputation and hostory of head hunting pretty much says it all.

Past behavior doesn’t indicate future behavior. Do you still make the same decisions today as you did 20 years ago? Or when you were 18?

No, I dont.

The league punished him in order to literally get him to stop going to the head & neck areas when making a tackle. Fining him near $100,000 this season alone hasn't worked.

Right. I’ve already said this. This is now the 4th time you’ve agreed with me. They punished him for hits like the Thomas hit. Not because this one was dirty.

ooooo you just gotta be right... it must hurt so bad.

Tell me again about how I’m the angry one.

I am completely baffled how you don't /or are unable to differentiate that agreeing with minor points - such as not every hit in his career is in fact dirty - does nothing the strengthen your argument.

Because that IS my whole argument. You agreeing with it tells me you know I’m in the right.

That statement is pretty dumb. I mean, really. Heres a strawman for you ... I know vontaze burfict was a dirty player. I dont need to see every tackle in his career to know that because the evidence i have seen is compelling enough to form an opinion.

Not every hit that Burfict made was dirty, either. Same as Jackson.

Yes. It is. he is more than 5 yards away. He absolutely had time to alter the angle of his hit.

He had less than one second to alter the angle of his hit. That’s not “plenty of time.” Even still, Jackson hit him leading with his shoulder, and he hit him in what we’ve both agreed now is the chest area.

Stunned you can look at that and think otherwise.

No you’re not. You’ve already conceded when you’ve agreed with my argument four different times now. How could you possibly be “stunned?”

Yet, I get why you are on that hill, swinging away, defending a guy like Kareem Jackson...

I’m only defending the Packers hit. I haven’t defended the others because those hits had clear intent to injure.

Its not? Well honestly, its not an excuse. Its a fact. Thats what its here for. and yet again, another comment about up "winning"... Do I even need to say it anymore?

For one, there was no comment about winning in that quote. For another, I’m glad to see you outright admit that you’re arguing for the sake of argument. I don’t get the feeling that this is all that fun for you, though.

And I think you walk around with an ego the size of the good year blimp, and your world is always centered around control...

Maybe some part of that is true in general. I think we all have an ego and we’re all narcissistic. I’m certainly no exception. But I’m also not the guy who knows his argument is dead and continuing the discussion because his ego won’t let him say, “you know what… maybe I got this one wrong.”

You’ve tossed out 3 different logical fallacies to make my point more attackable while agreeing with my real argument four different times now. Tell me again about how I have the ego problem and you don’t.

Please go get some help.

Please do. Make it political. Go for it.

I'm not the type to go running to Ian. I won't get you shut down. Be the Hero in your own world.

I can’t. I’m not allowed to talk politics on here because three people didn’t have the stomach for it. But you seem to know where I’m going with this, so why don’t you take the lead. Apply your belief that “past behavior indicates future behavior” to any minority group of people around the world, and do it in a way that doesn’t make you sound like a racist. Let me help you before you even try - it’s impossible.

Why not call it a day on this one? This clearly isn’t making you happy, you clearly know that your argument is inferior (there would be no reason to toss out logical fallacies if not), and there are better things to talk about.

 

[Pape]

I can see the white flag beginning to rise right up the mast. This is already over. Your pride is the only thing keeping you posting. And within an hour of my post, too? Tell me again about how you’re not using this board as a therapy device…

white flag? please define, as that term is not in my vocabulary

Awesome. Right off the bat, you blow up your whole “past patterns indicate future activity” stance. If we learn from history, we don’t repeat it.

Please keep up. I dont think that means what you think it means,

You could have just said you don’t know anything about the stock market. I hope you have someone else handling your investments or you’ll never retire.

If you had looked at Apple’s past performance in 1980, you’d assume they would continue to be nothing.

Disney says “hi.”

How many examples would you like? Most people without a business degree or a finance degree know that past performance doesn’t indicate future returns.

How about look at the trends in the market over an extended period? When larger economic forces are at play. The individual performance of a particular company stock is not indicative of anything except that particular companys performance. There may be reasons why a company shines or fails in the market.

The recidivism rate isn’t 100%. You’ve just proved my point.

but it was enough of an issue terminology was developed so it could be categorized.

It’s incomprehensible to me that you still believe you’re right on this one when you cannot even provide any evidence to back your claim. But keep painting with a broad brush if it makes you feel better.

NFL vice president of Jon Runyan said in a letter to Jackson:
“On the play in question, you delivered a forceful blow to the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver, when you had the time and space to avoid such contact. You could have made contact with your opponent within the rules, yet you chose not to.”

seems pretty obvious to me...

Sure. But there isn’t always malicious intent, which you, yourself, have already admitted.

"You could have made contact with your opponent within the rules, yet you chose not to."
Clear, concise and to the point.

Right. We know the league office never ****s one up. He got ejected and suspended because of his past behavior. That hit was not dirty. Just hard.

Go watch it again, and read the rule. It clearly states the parameters of what is considered illegal. Rule 12, article 9

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

which exactly what he did. Thank you for posting the videos and pictures making the point for me.

Nah. It’s just pictures. Not some lonely dude who uses this board as a therapy device arguing for the sake of argument. This is a low IQ argument that you’re making. That’s why you’re getting demolished. But it’s good that you’re getting your feelings out. I just wish you would do it with a qualified professional.

blah blah blah

But you DID appeal to an authority. What is this, if not an appeal to authority?

Sure did, and why not?

You appealed to an authority who didn’t even know what the Ideal Gas Law was. Either that, or they did and they ignored it. Not a great way to start things, and they’ve only gotten worse for you since.

100/1 you had no idea what the Ideal Gas Law was before it was mentioned in the wells report. Then all of a sudden, everyones an expert.

I don’t need to be right.

LOL.

I just know when I am and when my opponent isn’t. When they know it, and you clearly do, but they refuse to admit it and want to die on a hill instead, I get a kick out of driving them insane. I’m merely obliging you.

Then keep on obliging.

Not at all. I wanted to show you that your logic isn’t adding up. That’s why they are used in a cross-examination. They’re effective in either proving or disproving a point, or someone’s logic. Look at what it is doing to you. It completely destroyed your argument and backed you into a corner where you’ve agreed with me on 3 separate occasions. Now, your flailing away… trying desperately to land a point.

*sigh* they are used to ask leading question in order to move a story closer to the narrative they they want to sell. They are effective in getting the one side of the story out that they want out. But this isn't a court room, and you are not a lawyer.

Sure you do. If you can argue that something is taking place with a much bigger sample size, you can also do it with a smaller sample size. But you can’t. Because you’ve already admitted that not every tackle of his has malicious intent. You also tacitly admitted that not every big hit of his has malicious intent. Now you’re cornered. Know how you can tell? You’re on an island trying to argue that the blow wasn’t to the receiver’s chest when you have photographic evidence showing you that it was.

You literally see it in the video you posted. This is not an open field tackle. This is a hit on a player in a defenseless posture. Its plain as day.

Sometimes. Not all the time.

thank you. ie hes a dirty player.

I agree. That wasn’t the case against the Packers, though.

It was. Thats why he was suspended.

If it makes you feel like you’ve gotten a small win in this back-and-forth, I hope you believe that.

win/lose? eh, whats that? It matters not to me - at the end of the day I will not convince you its a dirty hit, and you will definitely will not convince me that that hit was a clean hit.

We can…

View attachment 54074

That is, quite clearly, the chest area. Not the head area. Not the neck area. In case you’re still confused, let’s look at another angle…

View attachment 54075

So, since we have already established that the chest area is the numbers plate, would you be so kind as to tell me where Jackson’s shoulder pad is?

Read the rule. Thats a shoulder riding up into the head and neck area. Thats above the chest plate.

I’m not angry at all, my guy. I have a good life. People who have seen pics of me, my wife, my kids can all tell you that. I can tag them if you wish. I have a good job that affords me a great life, I live a couple of blocks from the beach, I have a good work/life balance, my wife is good looking and has the sex drive of a woman in her mid-30s (which I am enjoying) and I have two beautiful, healthy kids. What is there to be angry about?

You come across as very angry and controlling. and i honestly am happy that you have a beautiful wife, house car boat plane, and hopefully a happy well adjusted kid.

I’m not angry.

Keep saying it and one day you might convince yourself otherwise.

You’re just reading my posts through angry eyes, and the information is being relayed to an angry brain. That’s your problem, not mine. I’ve told you how you can better handle it. But I can only lead the horse to water.

yeah yeah, flipping your neurosis on me isnt a real thing.

No, you wouldn’t. How do I know that? You just tried to accuse me of arguing that Jackson isn’t a dirty player. That’s a straw man argument. Why didn’t you tell me?

I am stunned. But then again, i shouldn't be. You love it and want more.

Past behavior doesn’t indicate future behavior. Do you still make the same decisions today as you did 20 years ago? Or when you were 18?

depends. what the situation? what decision needs to be made?

Right. I’ve already said this. This is now the 4th time you’ve agreed with me. They punished him for hits like the Thomas hit. Not because this one was dirty.

no, they are punishing for the green bay hit because:
“On the play in question, you delivered a forceful blow to the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver, when you had the time and space to avoid such contact. You could have made contact with your opponent within the rules, yet you chose not to.”

Tell me again about how I’m the angry one.

You are the angry one. Otherwise, these responses wouldnt keep growing. That you wouldnt have taken the time to find video, to make screen shots...

Because that IS my whole argument. You agreeing with it tells me you know I’m in the right.

There you go again with this pathological need to be "right". The only thing it says is that not every hit is a dirty hit. It does not excuse the more violent hits that seem to frequently occur when he gets the opportunity to unload on a defenseless players.

Not every hit that Burfict made was dirty, either. Same as Jackson.

and yet both are tabbed as dirty players

He had less than one second to alter the angle of his hit. That’s not “plenty of time.” Even still, Jackson hit him leading with his shoulder, and he hit him in what we’ve both agreed now is the chest area.

He had more than enough time to make a different decision. and again read the rule about the shoulder...

No you’re not. You’ve already conceded when you’ve agreed with my argument four different times now. How could you possibly be “stunned?”

I honestly am.

I’m only defending the Packers hit. I haven’t defended the others because those hits had clear intent to injure.

as did this one.

For one, there was no comment about winning in that quote. For another, I’m glad to see you outright admit that you’re arguing for the sake of argument. I don’t get the feeling that this is all that fun for you, though.

Im arguing because i think its a dirty hit and resulted in a well earned suspension.

*snip* because his ego won’t let him say, “you know what… maybe I got this one wrong.”

right back atcha on that one

You’ve tossed out 3 different logical fallacies to make my point more attackable while agreeing with my real argument four different times now. Tell me again about how I have the ego problem and you don’t.

yawn

Please go get some help.

Please get new material

I can’t. I’m not allowed to talk politics on here because three people didn’t have the stomach for it. But you seem to know where I’m going with this, so why don’t you take the lead. Apply your belief that “past behavior indicates future behavior” to any minority group of people around the world, and do it in a way that doesn’t make you sound like a racist. Let me help you before you even try - it’s impossible.

woulda coulda shoulda... you want to try and make me sound like a racist because of that statement? well, sent it to me in a pm if you dont want to get in trouble.

Why not call it a day on this one? This clearly isn’t making you happy, you clearly know that your argument is inferior (there would be no reason to toss out logical fallacies if not), and there are better things to talk about.

If I felt I was wrong, I would admit it. If you made a convincing argument, I would have told you that. I have done that several times before with other posters. However in this case, nah. Not buying what you are selling.

if you want to walk away, i cannot stop you. no one but your own score a W is forcing you to respond.

 

[Kontradiction]

white flag? please define, as that term is not in my vocabulary

Please keep up. I dont think that means what you think it means,

Sure it does.

How about look at the trends in the market over an extended period? When larger economic forces are at play. The individual performance of a particular company stock is not indicative of anything except that particular companys performance. There may be reasons why a company shines or fails in the market.

But that’s not the argument. Past performance does not indicate future returns. That’s well know by just about everyone except for you. You can say that about stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or the market as a whole. The 2008 financial crisis caught most by surprise partially BECAUSE past performance isn’t indicative of future returns.

but it was enough of an issue terminology was developed so it could be categorized.

NFL vice president of Jon Runyan said in a letter to Jackson:
“On the play in question, you delivered a forceful blow to the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver, when you had the time and space to avoid such contact. You could have made contact with your opponent within the rules, yet you chose not to.”

seems pretty obvious to me...

Another appeal to authority. Contrast this with your reaction to Deflategate…

Goodell to fine Jerry Jones millions for blocking his new contract

Roger Goodell reportedly will fine Cowboys owner Jerry Jones millions of dollars

www.patsfans.com

Goodell can stand on a podium, tell bald face lies to the media regarding tb12 and deflategate and get off scottfree... and he thinks he can judge someone else? Jones should get a freakin medal for trying to oust commissioner ginger

Bob Kravitz writes about Deflategate [Four Games in Fall Documentary]

...., even if it doesn't have culpatory information. i believe the word you are looking for is exculpatory

www.patsfans.com

i do understand... I'm not the one with readingcomprehension issues
(edit but i do have spelling issues, lol)

what you don't get or don't seem to grasp is this about deflategate - and why you tilting at windmills over his cellphone is utterly ridiculous ---

There is nothing Tom Brady could have said or done to prevent the NFL from suspending him. There is nothing Tom Brady could have said or done or provided to the league that would have prevented the league from suspending him.

Tom Brady was set up. Tom Brady was going to be found guilty as charged from the onset of the investigation. Brady had no chance of a fair hearing. The outcome was decided well in advance of any meeting, hearing, before any scientific study could be concocted, before any witnesses were interviewed... The desired outcome was determined in advance, and the NFL crafted the entire investigation to support the predetermined conclusion.

So, when it came to the Patriots, you called the league offices the following:

1) Liars.
2) Corrupt.
3) Blinded by confirmation bias.
4) Incompetent.

Yet, you’re appealing to their authority to the same corrupt liars blinded by confirmation bias trying to appeal to the fans. Why? Were you wrong about the league office before? Do you owe those posters apologies? Or, is the league office only competent when you’re trying to win a debate?

"You could have made contact with your opponent within the rules, yet you chose not to."
Clear, concise and to the point.

Go watch it again, and read the rule. It clearly states the parameters of what is considered illegal. Rule 12, article 9

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

1. forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;

which exactly what he did. Thank you for posting the videos and pictures making the point for me.


blah blah blah

He didn’t hit the head and neck area, though. He hit him in the number plate - your own definition of the chest.

Sure did, and why not?

Because it’s a moronic logical fallacy.

100/1 you had no idea what the Ideal Gas Law was before it was mentioned in the wells report. Then all of a sudden, everyones an expert.

Unfortunately, I had to take Chemistry in high school. So yes, I had heard of it. I’m sorry your school system was that bad, wherever you came from, though.

LOL.

Then keep on obliging.

*sigh* they are used to ask leading question in order to move a story closer to the narrative they they want to sell. They are effective in getting the one side of the story out that they want out. But this isn't a court room, and you are not a lawyer.

Nope. It’s a debate. And yes or no questions are a great way to reveal who has superior logic and who is arguing a point based on how he feels. If you don’t think it was effective, you wouldn’t be spending so much time on it. Let’s do some more…

Yes or no- I’ve claimed that Jackson is NOT a dirty player at any point in this thread or other threads?

Yes or no - every big hit delivered by every player has malicious intent?

You literally see it in the video you posted.

Literally.

This is not an open field tackle.

No hit like that is the dictionary definition of an open field tackle - dirty or not.

This is a hit on a player in a defenseless posture. Its plain as day.

8 minutes of similar hits that didn’t draw fines and were widely considered clean hits by the same league whose authority you’re appealing to. Most of the receivers (non-runner) is in what the NFL would describe as a “defenseless position.” Defenseless position leading to a big hit =/= dirty.

thank you. ie hes a dirty player.

Never claimed otherwise. That was a straw man on your part.

It was. Thats why he was suspended.

He was suspended because the league is run by a bunch of buffoons and he had a prior history. By your own admission, they will arrive to the conclusion first, then work backwards to justify their penalties.

win/lose? eh, whats that? It matters not to me -

That must be why you’re continuing this.

at the end of the day I will not convince you its a dirty hit, and you will definitely will not convince me that that hit was a clean hit.

I already have. You’ve agreed with my take four different times.

Read the rule. Thats a shoulder riding up into the head and neck area. Thats above the chest plate.

Let’s go to the picture again. Tell me where Jackson’s shoulder pad is…



In case you have vision impairment, I’ll soon in…



If you still think that’s the head/neck area that he’s hitting with his shoulder, I’ll set you up with an optometrist for some new bifocals.

You come across as very angry and controlling.

That’s probably because you’re angry and controlling, so you’re reading and processing my posts through that demeanor. I’m enjoying this. I like debating football.

and i honestly am happy that you have a beautiful wife, house car boat plane, and hopefully a happy well adjusted kid.

Kids*** But thanks, bro. I hope you find happiness soon.

Keep saying it and one day you might convince yourself otherwise.

I don’t need to convince myself. I just laid out all the reasons why. I got help when I needed it. I’d recommend it to everyone.

yeah yeah, flipping your neurosis on me isnt a real thing.

This doesn’t make sense. Getting tired?

depends. what the situation? what decision needs to be made?

That one rocked you, huh? Why not just answer the question? I’ll even simplify it for you - are you the same man you were 20 years ago? 10 years ago?

You are the angry one. Otherwise, these responses wouldnt keep growing. That you wouldnt have taken the time to find video, to make screen shots...

First, the fact that you didn’t apply this to your own responses is comedy gold. Second, long responses may indicate, to you, that someone is angry. In that case? Thanks for telling me what I already know - that you’re an angry, lonely man. In reality, these long responses are excellent for debate form, and allow me to attack every point. I’ve been debating like this for 18 years on this board. Literally.

There you go again with this pathological need to be "right". The only thing it says is that not every hit is a dirty hit. It does not excuse the more violent hits that seem to frequently occur when he gets the opportunity to unload on a defenseless players.

Well yeah. He’s a safety. That’s the safety’s responsibility. That’s how he earns his living. That’s why Jackson has been in the league so long. What you seem to have an issue with is big hits. Dirty and clean. Perhaps competitive crochet may be a more suitable sport for you?

and yet both are tabbed as dirty players

Never said otherwise.

He had more than enough time to make a different decision. and again read the rule about the shoulder...

Less than one second is more than enough time to make a different decision? You must have superhuman processing abilities.

woulda coulda shoulda... you want to try and make me sound like a racist because of that statement? well, sent it to me in a pm if you dont want to get in trouble.


If I felt I was wrong, I would admit it. If you made a convincing argument, I would have told you that. I have done that several times before with other posters.

Where have you done that before? I’ve never seen you admit you were wrong. Could you show me one post?

However in this case, nah. Not buying what you are selling.

That must be why you’ve agreed with me four different times now.

if you want to walk away, i cannot stop you. no one but your own score a W is forcing you to respond.

I’m sticking around because I’m entertained. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop playing the part of the tough, thick skinned guy. You and I both know you’ll miss me when I’m gone.

 

[Pape]

Sure it does.

wrong again. but im sure you are used to that by now

But that’s not the argument. Past performance does not indicate future returns. That’s well know by just about everyone except for you. You can say that about stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or the market as a whole. The 2008 financial crisis caught most by surprise partially BECAUSE past performance isn’t indicative of future returns.

sure does. and the financial crisis of 2008 was based on something slightly different. it had to do with otc derivatives where the risk management was non-existent. so it was a new factor that was the impetus because it put banks at risk because of their own predatory lending. people when never should have qualified for mortgages were given them.

Another appeal to authority. Contrast this with your reaction to Deflategate…

Goodell to fine Jerry Jones millions for blocking his new contract

Roger Goodell reportedly will fine Cowboys owner Jerry Jones millions of dollars

www.patsfans.com

Bob Kravitz writes about Deflategate [Four Games in Fall Documentary]

...., even if it doesn't have culpatory information. i believe the word you are looking for is exculpatory

www.patsfans.com

So, when it came to the Patriots, you called the league offices the following:

1) Liars.
2) Corrupt.
3) Blinded by confirmation bias.
4) Incompetent.

Yet, you’re appealing to their authority to the same corrupt liars blinded by confirmation bias trying to appeal to the fans. Why? Were you wrong about the league office before? Do you owe those posters apologies? Or, is the league office only competent when you’re trying to win a debate?

and this is all of a false equivalency.

they are two sets of different circumstances. they are not factually similar, and one has no bearing on the other except to act as a red herring.

and i stand by those statements.

but one does not belie the other.

He didn’t hit the head and neck area, though. He hit him in the number plate - your own definition of the chest.

above the number plate, which is the head and neck area. basic biology is not that hard.

Because it’s a moronic logical fallacy.



Unfortunately, I had to take Chemistry in high school. So yes, I had heard of it. I’m sorry your school system was that bad, wherever you came from, though.

knew all about it. it was part of the open water scuba instructors examination. pressure, volume, temperature, all that fun stuff

Nope. It’s a debate. And yes or no questions are a great way to reveal who has superior logic and who is arguing a point based on how he feels. If you don’t think it was effective, you wouldn’t be spending so much time on it. Let’s do some more…

yes or no questons dont reveal logic.. they are leading questions...

Yes or no- I’ve claimed that Jackson is NOT a dirty player at any point in this thread or other threads?

i dont know, believe it or not, im not that interested to go rooting around in prior posts in order to try and make a point. which you did, which was non tangential to this conversation. but you are good at it... lots of practice, as its something you have always done,,, see theres that past behavior predicting your future actions at work...

Yes or no - every big hit delivered by every player has malicious intent?

No. Some players do it right.

Literally.

literally

No hit like that is the dictionary definition of an open field tackle - dirty or not.

right its a hit on a defenseless player. in that case its incumbent on the tackler to be aware of and make adjustments to avoid such hits. being more than 15 feet away he had plenty of time to do so. he didnt. that more than infers intent. and when it is to a defenseless player, its malicious.

8 minutes of similar hits that didn’t draw fines and were widely considered clean hits by the same league whose authority you’re appealing to. Most of the receivers (non-runner) is in what the NFL would describe as a “defenseless position.” Defenseless position leading to a big hit =/= dirty.

notice the difference?
upper photo: pads low, proper engagement to the chest plate on a defenseless player
lower photo: helmet level with the receivers helmet, shoulder is above the numbers in the head/neck region

Never claimed otherwise. That was a straw man on your part.

you need to look up what a strawman argument is.

He was suspended because the league is run by a bunch of buffoons and he had a prior history. By your own admission, they will arrive to the conclusion first, then work backwards to justify their penalties.

again, false equivalency between the two. You aren't making the point you think you are making.

That must be why you’re continuing this.

and you as well.

I already have. You’ve agreed with my take four different times.

no, i haven't agreed with your "take".

Let’s go to the picture again. Tell me where Jackson’s shoulder pad is…

View attachment 54090

In case you have vision impairment, I’ll soon in…

View attachment 54091

If you still think that’s the head/neck area that he’s hitting with his shoulder, I’ll set you up with an optometrist for some new bifocals.

He is helmet to helmet with the side of the receivers head. its physically impossible for his shoulder to he in the chest plate.

That’s probably because you’re angry and controlling, so you’re reading and processing my posts through that demeanor. I’m enjoying this. I like debating football.

lol, ahhh thats your game... so driven to get that W you just cant walk away. got to control everything.

Kids*** But thanks, bro. I hope you find happiness soon.

mean that with all sincerity.

I don’t need to convince myself. I just laid out all the reasons why. I got help when I needed it. I’d recommend it to everyone.



This doesn’t make sense. Getting tired?

only in the sense that ive been up since 3 am
people generally do not change, during your development you form you base ethos, ethics, or morals if you will. this ethos guides you thru the decision making process for the rest of your life. the circumstances of their lives may change, necessatating adaption to those new environs. There also maybe undue influence at play from external forces but unless those are in play, you will conform to that personal ethos in decision making. You may gain wisdom and experience, but the core process remains the same, unchanged.

First, the fact that you didn’t apply this to your own responses is comedy gold. Second, long responses may indicate, to you, that someone is angry. In that case? Thanks for telling me what I already know - that you’re an angry, lonely man. In reality, these long responses are excellent for debate form, and allow me to attack every point. I’ve been debating like this for 18 years on this board. Literally.

have at

Well yeah. He’s a safety. That’s the safety’s responsibility. That’s how he earns his living. That’s why Jackson has been in the league so long. What you seem to have an issue with is big hits. Dirty and clean. Perhaps competitive crochet may be a more suitable sport for you?

whats the issue? simply put big hits can still happen without the head hunting. its unnecessary.

Never said otherwise.



Less than one second is more than enough time to make a different decision? You must have superhuman processing abilities.

really? takes that much time to process the thought bend at the waist? that statement of yours is asinine

Where have you done that before? I’ve never seen you admit you were wrong. Could you show me one post?

in talking about meyers this off season. most likely in the free gency thread, predicted hed be 15+m ir so. completely whiffed. you are better at finding my old posts than i am.

That must be why you’ve agreed with me four different times now.

ahhh becareful with that. i have never agreed with the basic tenent that the hit in green bay was a clean hit.

I’m sticking around because I’m entertained. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop playing the part of the tough, thick skinned guy. You and I both know you’ll miss me when I’m gone.

View attachment 54092

oh, is that your wife? man you florida guys get att the lookers, dontcha?

 

[venecol]

Thank you for that. Now, allow me to finish you off

Finish me off?

Which is what I did.

Just stop.
... it must hurt so bad.

I can’t.

Then keep on obliging.

That one rocked you, huh

 

[Pape]

View attachment 54095

 

[Kontradiction]

wrong again. but im sure you are used to that by now

sure does. and the financial crisis of 2008 was based on something slightly different. it had to do with otc derivatives where the risk management was non-existent. so it was a new factor that was the impetus because it put banks at risk because of their own predatory lending. people when never should have qualified for mortgages were given them.

and this is all of a false equivalency.

they are two sets of different circumstances. they are not factually similar, and one has no bearing on the other except to act as a red herring.

and i stand by those statements.

but one does not belie the other.


above the number plate, which is the head and neck area. basic biology is not that hard.

knew all about it. it was part of the open water scuba instructors examination. pressure, volume, temperature, all that fun stuff

yes or no questons dont reveal logic.. they are leading questions...

i dont know, believe it or not, im not that interested to go rooting around in prior posts in order to try and make a point. which you did, which was non tangential to this conversation. but you are good at it... lots of practice, as its something you have always done,,, see theres that past behavior predicting your future actions at work...

No. Some players do it right.

literally

right its a hit on a defenseless player. in that case its incumbent on the tackler to be aware of and make adjustments to avoid such hits. being more than 15 feet away he had plenty of time to do so. he didnt. that more than infers intent. and when it is to a defenseless player, its malicious.

notice the difference?
upper photo: pads low, proper engagement to the chest plate on a defenseless player
lower photo: helmet level with the receivers helmet, shoulder is above the numbers in the head/neck region

you need to look up what a strawman argument is.



again, false equivalency between the two. You aren't making the point you think you are making.



and you as well.

no, i haven't agreed with your "take".

He is helmet to helmet with the side of the receivers head. its physically impossible for his shoulder to he in the chest plate.

lol, ahhh thats your game... so driven to get that W you just cant walk away. got to control everything.

mean that with all sincerity.

only in the sense that ive been up since 3 am

people generally do not change, during your development you form you base ethos, ethics, or morals if you will. this ethos guides you thru the decision making process for the rest of your life. the circumstances of their lives may change, necessatating adaption to those new environs. There also maybe undue influence at play from external forces but unless those are in play, you will conform to that personal ethos in decision making. You may gain wisdom and experience, but the core process remains the same, unchanged.


have at

whats the issue? simply put big hits can still happen without the head hunting. its unnecessary.


really? takes that much time to process the thought bend at the waist? that statement of yours is asinine

in talking about meyers this off season. most likely in the free gency thread, predicted hed be 15+m ir so. completely whiffed. you are better at finding my old posts than i am.

ahhh becareful with that. i have never agreed with the basic tenent that the hit in green bay was a clean hit.

oh, is that your wife? man you florida guys get att the lookers, dontcha?

Just got home from FL/GA weekend and I ain’t reading all that. I did read the last sentence though. How’s your wife looking these days?

 

[Pape]

Just got home from FL/GA weekend and I ain’t reading all that. I did read the last sentence though. How’s your wife looking these days?

Out of bounds.

You want to attack me, do so. You want to insult me? do so.


But this? Making fun of my dead wife? Not acceptable.

 

[Kontradiction]

Out of bounds.

You want to attack me, do so. You want to insult me? do so.


But this? Making fun of my dead wife? Not acceptable.

Your last sentence was taking a shot at my wife. Not wise.

 

[Pape]

Your last sentence was taking a shot at my wife. Not wise.

a Lame joke versus that?

**** you.

 

[Kontradiction]

a Lame joke versus that?

**** you.

Didn’t read like a lame joke, bud. Maybe put an emoji next to it in the future, if it’s a joke. And no thanks to the ****ing. You should log off PatsFans for a while and find a woman for that. I’m sure your ****ty, little apartment is filled with jizz rags. Maybe after you find her, you won’t be so angry on here all the time.

 

[Pape]

Didn’t read like a lame joke, bud. Maybe put an emoji next to it in the future, if it’s a joke. And no thanks to the ****ing. You should log off PatsFans for a while and find a woman for that. I’m sure your ****ty, little apartment is filled with jizz rags. Maybe after you find her, you won’t be so angry on here all the time.

You crossed a line.

Theres no going back. There is no explanation or excuse which is good enough.

 

[Kontradiction]

You crossed a line.

Theres no going back. There is no explanation or excuse which is good enough.

That’s cool. The line was crossed by you first. Don’t cry like a baby now that it got blown back at you. And don’t pretend like that was a joke.

 

[Pape]

That’s cool. The line was crossed by you first. Don’t cry like a baby now that it got blown back at you. And don’t pretend like that was a joke.

Nah dude, not even close. I made a joke, you? yeah.....

you are a piece of ****.