|
Post by ram29jackson on Dec 22, 2014 15:07:28 GMT -5
Something else to consider...of all the unwise loudmouths that have been in the NFL is there any way one of them wouldn't have screwed up and popped off about this so-called preplanning by now? Or are the media part of the conspiracy too, making sure that they don't bring up anything that might imply that it's all scripted? If so, expand that conspiracy to tens of thousands. Yeahrite. its not that hard
thefixisin.net/theproof.html
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Dec 22, 2014 20:51:08 GMT -5
Something else to consider...of all the unwise loudmouths that have been in the NFL is there any way one of them wouldn't have screwed up and popped off about this so-called preplanning by now? Or are the media part of the conspiracy too, making sure that they don't bring up anything that might imply that it's all scripted? If so, expand that conspiracy to tens of thousands. Yeahrite. its not that hard
thefixisin.net/theproof.html
The NFL, believe it or not, isn't the government. The NFL can't pass laws that literally control the ability of the press to function. It has 6 billion in power...less than those media conglomerates have. The government has TRILLIONS. You know, like thousands of billions. And the ability to legislate. Here's the thing. Even if those five media conglomerates wanted to go along with your alleged conspiracy, this is the information age. There are thousands of media outlets not owned by those conglomerates that would love nothing better than to make a name by proving your brand of scripting. And yet, none have. It might have helped if you'd read the entire article, instead of cherry-picking a quote. It was a profile of ESPN and Bill Simmons, and that quote referred to ESPN's power in controlling the marketing of sports teams, NOTHING to do with some form of predestination of football. Matter of fact, it didn't even refer to football. Here's another quote from the same article that others might find interesting, if only that it flies completely in the face of yours: “The programming guys who manage those relationships have no say in news and information. Those lines do not cross. There is only one person who has a foot in each camp, and that’s me. … No story has ever been compromised by having a business interest.” Media outlets aren't the player you'd like to believe...especially as far as determining the outcome of sporting events. Sorry, but you come off as a paranoid conspiracy nut.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Dec 30, 2014 22:22:06 GMT -5
this is a line of bull. A complete lie that you have bought. No man and no team can be that successful without complete and total manipulation. The fact is you as well have no proof what so ever other than faith that it wasn't manipulated Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. Doesn't really take much effort to look into those things, and you're a smart person apparently, but I think your efforts in this particular argument are misplaced. Yeah, like everyone, I believe that sometimes the leagues might "steer" the results in a particular direction because certain outcomes are "better for the league" as a whole, but to claim that EVERY outcome is "rigged" as you're saying - again without the hard evidence necessary to actually make that claim - is illogical at best. Sometimes people can see the same play and have different viewpoints, even when it's clear what happened. Also, it does nothing to HELP any argument you're trying to make by referring to everyone else as idiots when you clearly have no hard evidence to prove anything you're saying here. SHOW the evidence where this is clearly proven and maybe things will be different, but either way it still doesn't make anyone else an idiot because they're not buying your very flawed argument here.
|
|
|
Post by ram29jackson on Jan 2, 2015 18:05:49 GMT -5
this is a line of bull. A complete lie that you have bought. No man and no team can be that successful without complete and total manipulation. The fact is you as well have no proof what so ever other than faith that it wasn't manipulated Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. Doesn't really take much effort to look into those things, and you're a smart person apparently, but I think your efforts in this particular argument are misplaced. Yeah, like everyone, I believe that sometimes the leagues might "steer" the results in a particular direction because certain outcomes are "better for the league" as a whole, but to claim that EVERY outcome is "rigged" as you're saying - again without the hard evidence necessary to actually make that claim - is illogical at best. Sometimes people can see the same play and have different viewpoints, even when it's clear what happened. Also, it does nothing to HELP any argument you're trying to make by referring to everyone else as idiots when you clearly have no hard evidence to prove anything you're saying here. SHOW the evidence where this is clearly proven and maybe things will be different, but either way it still doesn't make anyone else an idiot because they're not buying your very flawed argument here.
LOL that doesn't qualify as history. That qualifies as a made up story you read and believed.
Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. not one damn thing here proves games aren't manipulated. It just means you know how to read.
prove to me it actually played out without manipulation...you cant.
that's a story they made up after all the teams took a dive against the Browns
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Jan 2, 2015 18:38:24 GMT -5
Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. Doesn't really take much effort to look into those things, and you're a smart person apparently, but I think your efforts in this particular argument are misplaced. Yeah, like everyone, I believe that sometimes the leagues might "steer" the results in a particular direction because certain outcomes are "better for the league" as a whole, but to claim that EVERY outcome is "rigged" as you're saying - again without the hard evidence necessary to actually make that claim - is illogical at best. Sometimes people can see the same play and have different viewpoints, even when it's clear what happened. Also, it does nothing to HELP any argument you're trying to make by referring to everyone else as idiots when you clearly have no hard evidence to prove anything you're saying here. SHOW the evidence where this is clearly proven and maybe things will be different, but either way it still doesn't make anyone else an idiot because they're not buying your very flawed argument here.
LOL that doesn't qualify as history. That qualifies as a made up story you read and believed.
Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. not one damn thing here proves games aren't manipulated. It just means you know how to read.
prove to me it actually played out without manipulation...you cant.
that's a story they made up after all the teams took a dive against the Browns
Dangit, I thought we were rid of you. But I guess herpes is the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
|
Post by cantonhall34 on Jan 5, 2015 21:33:03 GMT -5
Actually I do have the proof of what I said. It's called history. Go back and review what Paul Brown's contributions to the game were and you will see how he was ahead of the league and it took some time for the rest to catch up. As a matter of fact, many of the things we take for granted in the league today were a direct result of Paul Brown's influence, including some plays that are still being run by offenses, the pass pocket, classroom coaching, playbooks (as they are), facemasks, the radio in the helmet to relay the plays to the player on the field, etc. Doesn't really take much effort to look into those things, and you're a smart person apparently, but I think your efforts in this particular argument are misplaced. Yeah, like everyone, I believe that sometimes the leagues might "steer" the results in a particular direction because certain outcomes are "better for the league" as a whole, but to claim that EVERY outcome is "rigged" as you're saying - again without the hard evidence necessary to actually make that claim - is illogical at best. Sometimes people can see the same play and have different viewpoints, even when it's clear what happened. Also, it does nothing to HELP any argument you're trying to make by referring to everyone else as idiots when you clearly have no hard evidence to prove anything you're saying here. SHOW the evidence where this is clearly proven and maybe things will be different, but either way it still doesn't make anyone else an idiot because they're not buying your very flawed argument here.
LOL that doesn't qualify as history. That qualifies as a made up story you read and believed. not one damn thing here proves games aren't manipulated. It just means you know how to read.
prove to me it actually played out without manipulation...you cant.
that's a story they made up after all the teams took a dive against the Browns
For the record - You haven't proven anything to anyone, merely given ideas and opinions of what you thought happened. You're ignoring the actual facts and instead dismissing them as "irrelevant" because they don't line up with your way of thinking. There is no other way to describe your efforts here than trolling, and I'm actually being very nice about that. I've tried to see your point of view on this and even gone so far as to agree with certain aspects of the game-fixing that you're referring to, however, for you to completely (and continuously) ignore the facts that ARE being presented makes whatever THIS is a moot point. There is no reason to comment further on anything you're saying in regard to this particular thread and I will no longer entertain your nonsense. It seems clear to everyone that you're obviously only going to believe whatever you say yourself, regardless of the proof that is given to you, so good luck continuing the discussion you think you're having.
|
|
|
Post by ram29jackson on Jan 7, 2015 14:40:41 GMT -5
a team winning a game isn't a proven fact that it wasn't done without manipulation and that's all you have against me.Poor logic on your part. You are still hoping by faith that its true while I have given historic and circumstantial evidence that gamblers and corrupt mafia were the people that started the original nfl.
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Jan 8, 2015 1:02:37 GMT -5
a team winning a game isn't a proven fact that it wasn't done without manipulation and that's all you have against me.Poor logic on your part. You are still hoping by faith that its true while I have given historic and circumstantial evidence that gamblers and corrupt mafia were the people that started the original nfl. If that 'fixisin' link is your proof, man are you deluded. But let's say that it's true that the NFL was started by the shady elements you describe. In 1920. Think things might have changed in the near-century since? Even then, it's a leap of faith (i.e., once again, complete lack of evidence) to assume that the games are scripted. Circumstantial evidence? Really? The circumstances being that a team made it to the SB four years running? Sorry, you have no smoking gun...you don't even have a fizzle.
|
|
|
Post by ram29jackson on Jan 8, 2015 14:13:45 GMT -5
a team winning a game isn't a proven fact that it wasn't done without manipulation and that's all you have against me.Poor logic on your part. You are still hoping by faith that its true while I have given historic and circumstantial evidence that gamblers and corrupt mafia were the people that started the original nfl. If that 'fixisin' link is your proof, man are you deluded. But let's say that it's true that the NFL was started by the shady elements you describe. In 1920. Think things might have changed in the near-century since? Even then, it's a leap of faith (i.e., once again, complete lack of evidence) to assume that the games are scripted. Circumstantial evidence? Really? The circumstances being that a team made it to the SB four years running? Sorry, you have no smoking gun...you don't even have a fizzle. IE you are still too mentally childish and need to believe lies to survive. Yes, the Buffalo example is plenty for an intelligent person. You are saying that you believe everything went absolutely perfect for 1 team four years in a row. You are saying you are dumb enough to believe a back QB who threw 47 passes all year can lead the greatest comeback ever with no run game in the feezing cold.
1920 ? show me where corruption has died and become passé since then......? sports leagues were invented by gamblers for gambling. That has never changed
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Jan 8, 2015 14:19:01 GMT -5
If that 'fixisin' link is your proof, man are you deluded. But let's say that it's true that the NFL was started by the shady elements you describe. In 1920. Think things might have changed in the near-century since? Even then, it's a leap of faith (i.e., once again, complete lack of evidence) to assume that the games are scripted. Circumstantial evidence? Really? The circumstances being that a team made it to the SB four years running? Sorry, you have no smoking gun...you don't even have a fizzle. IE you are still too mentally childish and need to believe lies to survive. Yes, the Buffalo example is plenty for an intelligent person. You are saying that you believe everything went absolutely perfect for 1 team four years in a row. You are saying you are dumb enough to believe a back QB who threw 47 passes all year can lead the greatest comeback ever with no run game in the feezing cold.
1920 ? show me where corruption has died and become passé since then......? sports leagues were invented by gamblers for gambling. That has never changed
I think you're misusing the word intelligent. Because that word simply means they have the capacity for learning and learn well. But you can be incredibly intelligent and uneducated. The word I think you're looking for is crazy. "The Buffalo example should be enough for a crazy person"
|
|