http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788

Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots merely got a
slap on the wrist.

Among the issues that continue to trouble Specter:

.. Goodell's imposition of a penalty -- the loss of a first-round draft
pick, a $500,000 fine to Patriots coach Bill Belichick and a $250,000 fine
to the team -- before the Pats had turned over evidence, including notes
dating to 2002 and six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason,
requested by the league.
The commissioner imposed his penalty on Sept. 13, four days before New
England provided the tapes and notes.

"Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?"
asked Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney. "The answer is no."

Belichick reportedly told Goodell that he thought he was within the rules to
tape other team's signals as long as the information wasn't used in the game
at hand. (LMAO) yes I am taping signals just for the heck of it, nice try
Bill !

.. Specter said it was unsettling to learn that the tapes, as well as notes,
turned over by the Patriots in September had been destroyed in Foxborough,
Mass., rather than in the league's New York offices.

Soot wrote:

> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>
> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots merely
> got a slap on the wrist.
>
Yes, you're exactly right.
Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.

Sri Krsna wrote:
> Soot wrote:
>
>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>
>> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots merely
>> got a slap on the wrist.
>>
> Yes, you're exactly right.
> Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
> Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>

Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via superbowls,
third party product, playoff checks, careers lost, etc...it is way
WORSE than a felony...on par with organized crime. Of course Patriot
fans will never admit that because in their eyes it was all okay. The
fact that ALL evidence apparently had to be immediately destroyed
clearly indicates Goodell is (or I should say "did") covering something
up that must have been so devastating to either the Patriots or the NFL
in general he just HAD to get rid of all evidence.

If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this level
with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all be
screaming bloody murder...

I just read today some players from the 2002
Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.

I think the suit is for $100M. This thing isn't
going away . . . . .

Voice-of-Insanity wrote:

> Sri Krsna wrote:
>
>> Soot wrote:
>>
>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>>
>>> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots
>>> merely got a slap on the wrist.
>>>
>> Yes, you're exactly right.
>> Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
>> Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>>
> Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via
> superbowls, third party product, playoff checks, careers lost,
> etc...it is way WORSE than a felony...on par with organized crime. Of
> course Patriot fans will never admit that because in their eyes it was
> all okay. The fact that ALL evidence apparently had to be immediately
> destroyed clearly indicates Goodell is (or I should say "did")
> covering something up that must have been so devastating to either the
> Patriots or the NFL in general he just HAD to get rid of all evidence.
>
> If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this
> level with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all be
> screaming bloody murder...


If that's how you truly feel, then stop watching the NFL.
That's really what any reasonable person who's concluded that the
product is rotten to the core, something you've stated in the above,
would do. It's simple enough.

Sri Krsna wrote:
> Voice-of-Insanity wrote:
>
>> Sri Krsna wrote:
>>
>>> Soot wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>>>
>>>> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots
>>>> merely got a slap on the wrist.
>>>>
>>> Yes, you're exactly right.
>>> Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
>>> Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>>>
>> Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via
>> superbowls, third party product, playoff checks, careers lost,
>> etc...it is way WORSE than a felony...on par with organized crime. Of
>> course Patriot fans will never admit that because in their eyes it was
>> all okay. The fact that ALL evidence apparently had to be immediately
>> destroyed clearly indicates Goodell is (or I should say "did")
>> covering something up that must have been so devastating to either the
>> Patriots or the NFL in general he just HAD to get rid of all evidence.
>>
>> If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this
>> level with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all be
>> screaming bloody murder...
>
>
> If that's how you truly feel, then stop watching the NFL.
> That's really what any reasonable person who's concluded that the
> product is rotten to the core, something you've stated in the above,
> would do. It's simple enough.
>

Actually I don't watch the Patriots unless forced to (when they are
playing Dallas or in the SB). I don't believe the NFL is rotten to the
core, just the Patriots (and Goodell based on his obvious coverup)...and
as far as I'm concerned every positive thing they've done (records) need
to include an * after it with an explaination of their cheating.

I will continue to watch and enjoy America's Team whenever I can and
enjoy watching players with personalities...knowing they earned their
accolades the good ole' fashion honest way.

On Feb 15, 5:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I just read today some players from the 2002
> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>
> I think the suit is for $100M. This thing isn't
> going away . . . . .

Sure it is. What have they got for evidence? A disgruntled former
employer, no tape, and no crime. Good luck with that, fuckwit.

'Voice-of-Reason' decided to chime in with:

>
> I will continue to watch and enjoy America's Team

A Cowboys fan who watches the Packers?

Voice-of-Reason wrote:

> Sri Krsna wrote:
>
>> Voice-of-Insanity wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Krsna wrote:
>>>
>>>> Soot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>>>>
>>>>> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots
>>>>> merely got a slap on the wrist.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're exactly right.
>>>> Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a
>>>> felony.
>>>> Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>>>>
>>> Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via
>>> superbowls, third party product, playoff checks, careers lost,
>>> etc...it is way WORSE than a felony...on par with organized crime.
>>> Of course Patriot fans will never admit that because in their eyes
>>> it was all okay. The fact that ALL evidence apparently had to be
>>> immediately destroyed clearly indicates Goodell is (or I should say
>>> "did") covering something up that must have been so devastating to
>>> either the Patriots or the NFL in general he just HAD to get rid of
>>> all evidence.
>>>
>>> If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this
>>> level with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all
>>> be screaming bloody murder...
>>
>> If that's how you truly feel, then stop watching the NFL.
>> That's really what any reasonable person who's concluded that the
>> product is rotten to the core, something you've stated in the above,
>> would do. It's simple enough.
>>
> Actually I don't watch the Patriots unless forced to (when they are
> playing Dallas or in the SB). I don't believe the NFL is rotten to
> the core, just the Patriots (and Goodell based on his obvious
> coverup)...and as far as I'm concerned every positive thing they've
> done (records) need to include an * after it with an explaination of
> their cheating.
>
> I will continue to watch and enjoy America's Team whenever I can and
> enjoy watching players with personalities...knowing they earned their
> accolades the good ole' fashion honest way.


Ah yes, the good ole days when football players were more than men,
smoked crack, ran team brothels, molested children after retiring, were
convicted of criminally negligent homicide and so forth. Indeed, players
with "personalities."

Mike or Mad Dog: Did you ever steal signals?
Jimmy Johnson: Oh, in a heartbeat! Yeah, yes I did.

Mike or Mad Dog: By a video Jimmy or no?
Jimmy Johnson: Oh yeah! I did it with video and so did a lot of other
teams in the league. I mean...just to make sure that you can study it
and take your time because you're gonna play the team a second time
around. A lot of coaches did. This was commonplace.

Mike or Mad Dog: But did you do it by taping the signal caller?
Jimmy Johnson: Yeah! That's what I'm saying. I was taught by....one of
Marty Schottenheimer's scouts....Mark Hadley actually who's passed away
now but....Mark told me that's how they did it and Howard Mudd, that's
their offensive line coach with Kansas City who now coaches for Tony
Dungee...you know he was the best in the entire league in stealing signals.

Mike or Mad Dog: Where did you put your guy who was videotaping?
Jimmy Johnson: Actually, my guy was next to the camera crew in the press
box so you just put an extra camera with the camera in the press box and
zoomed in on the signal caller. That's the best way to do it.

Like I said before, Voice of Insanity, if you consider such spygate
practice as felonius, you really need to stop watching football and get
out more. And by your own standard considering Jimmy Johnson's
admission, the Cowboys dynasty also needs an astericks.

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

> Mike or Mad Dog: Where did you put your guy who was videotaping?
> Jimmy Johnson: Actually, my guy was next to the camera crew in the
> press box so you just put an extra camera with the camera in the
> press box and zoomed in on the signal caller. That's the best way to
> do it.

Sorry. Read the above paragraph 100 times and maybe it will sink through
your thick skull. What JJ is describing is *still* not against the rules.
What the Patriots did was break those rules in a firm and bad way. Get
over it. * forever on their record.


--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>
>>Mike or Mad Dog: Where did you put your guy who was videotaping?
>>Jimmy Johnson: Actually, my guy was next to the camera crew in the
>>press box so you just put an extra camera with the camera in the
>>press box and zoomed in on the signal caller. That's the best way to
>>do it.
>>
>>
>Sorry. Read the above paragraph 100 times and maybe it will sink through
>your thick skull. What JJ is describing is *still* not against the rules.
>What the Patriots did was break those rules in a firm and bad way. Get
>over it. * forever on their record.
>
>
Maybe when you lose your attitude it'll also sink into your head that I
am not defending BB having broken the rules. If you read my reply in
context, it should make more sense.....should you decide to take your
own advice and read it 100 times, sport.

And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so obsessed
with the issue.

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

>
> And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so obsessed
> with the issue.

Like you.

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>>And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so obsessed
>>with the issue.
>>
>>
>Like you.
>
>
I didn't start this thread, now did I sport, and responding to the guys
like you.
Anything else stupid you want to say?

I wrote:

>
> PC wrote:
>
>> 'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>>
>>> And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so obsessed
>>> with the issue.
>>>
>>
>> Like you.
>>
>
> I didn't start this thread, now did I sport, and am only responding to
> the guys like you.
> Anything else stupid you want to say?
>
Fixed

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
> I wrote:
>
>>
>> PC wrote:
>>
>>> 'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>>>
>>>> And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so
>>>> obsessed with the issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like you.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't start this thread, now did I sport, and am only responding
>> to the guys like you.
>> Anything else stupid you want to say?
>>
> Fixed

LOL How many tries does it take to get it right? First you defend the
Patriots, now you don't care, and now you need to invent things I said.
Sheesh.

--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I just read today some players from the 2002
> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>
> I think the suit is for $100M.  This thing isn't
> going away . . . . .

Should every other team in the league sue the Denver Broncos for
illegally circumventing the salary cap in 1997-98, when they won back-
to-back Super Bowls, because by doing so it created an illegitimate
competitive advantage? Should every other team in the league sue the
Miami Dolphins because they illegally hired Don Shula as their coach
way back when, and then he coached them to a couple of Super Bowl
titles? I mean, good grief.

John

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>PC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And the people who really need to get over it are the ones so
>>>>>obsessed with the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Like you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I didn't start this thread, now did I sport, and am only responding
>>>to the guys like you.
>>>Anything else stupid you want to say?
>>>
>>>
>>Fixed
>>
>>
>
>LOL How many tries does it take to get it right? First you defend the
>Patriots, now you don't care, and now you need to invent things I said.
>Sheesh.
>
>
It was a simple mistake, sport, but I see from your attempts are retorts
and your antics here that you're the sort who revels in schadenfreude.
Pity. As far as the rest of your reply is concerned, it's all bullshit
so I'll not be bothered to address it. Keep trying kid.

john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I just read today some players from the 2002
>> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
>> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>>
>> I think the suit is for $100M. This thing isn't
>> going away . . . . .
>
> Should every other team in the league sue the Denver Broncos for
> illegally circumventing the salary cap in 1997-98, when they won back-
> to-back Super Bowls, because by doing so it created an illegitimate
> competitive advantage? Should every other team in the league sue the
> Miami Dolphins because they illegally hired Don Shula as their coach
> way back when, and then he coached them to a couple of Super Bowl
> titles? I mean, good grief.
>
> John

Well, actually no on both counts...neither of those issues gave the
offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
defensive set was on every given play)...

And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...

PC wrote:
> 'Voice-of-Reason' decided to chime in with:
>
>> I will continue to watch and enjoy America's Team
>
> A Cowboys fan who watches the Packers?
>
>

Lol...I said America's team, not team from the land of the dairy farmer.
But, I do watch the Packers pretty regularly...usually my first choice
if no NFCE teams are on...

On Feb 15, 10:20 pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> I just read today some players from the 2002
> >> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> >> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>
> >> I think the suit is for $100M.  This thing isn't
> >> going away . . . . .
>
> > Should every other team in the league sue the Denver Broncos for
> > illegally circumventing the salary cap in 1997-98, when they won back-
> > to-back Super Bowls, because by doing so it created an illegitimate
> > competitive advantage?  Should every other team in the league sue the
> > Miami Dolphins because they illegally hired Don Shula as their coach
> > way back when, and then he coached them to a couple of Super Bowl
> > titles?  I mean, good grief.
>
> > John
>
> Well, actually no on both counts...neither of those issues gave the
> offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
> knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
> defensive set was on every given play)...

Goodell already has said that the Patriots didn't gain any advantage
from taping. If you don't believe him, that's fine. But he's the one
who reviewed the tapes, not you. He's the one who talked with
Belichick, not you. So who has a more informed opinion about this:
you or him? Probably him. But in any case, it's pretty clear how
circumventing the salary cap would allow you to build a better
roster. Greater depth, adding a key player who otherwise would be too
expensive, etc. And it seems pretty clear that hiring a legendary
coach like Shula would be an advantage over hiring some schlep. Both
these moves - both illegal - gave those teams a competitive advantage
over the other teams in the league. So isn't that "cheating"?

> And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...-

No idea. Maybe because the only person who *needs* to see it is
Goodell. He is, after all, the commissioner. There's nobody above
him in the league.

John
PS - In the case of the Rams/Pats Super Bowl, the Rams' walkthrough
was - by their own account - just red zone plays. The only time they
got into the red zone against the Patriots they scored a TD (on
Warner's run). So how, exactly, did the Pats' taping of the Rams'
walkthrough (if it even happened at all) actually aid them in winning
the game?

"Voice-of-Reason" <shirtrem@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:UDstj.3410>

> neither of those issues gave the
> offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
> knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
> defensive set was on every given play)...
>

Strong words: clear and undeniable advantage, knowing exactly, knowing
without a doubt.
Please tell me how you know this to be true - or is it just your opinion?

On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I just read today some players from the 2002
> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248055

> I think the suit is for $100M.  This thing isn't
> going away . . . . .

Sure it is. It's nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit. I don't know
when a hearing is scheduled on this matter, but I expect the suit to
be dismissed at the earliest possible moment.

Why did the people who filed this suit wait *5* years to file the
lawsuit?? Because they would have looked dumber than they already do
if they hadn't waited for the Cheatriots to get busted by the league
by their own stupidity... not to mention that they most likely do not
have ANY evidence to back up their pathetic lawsuit.

--- Cory, NOT a Patriot apologist at all...

'patsFan' decided to chime in with:
> "Voice-of-Reason" <shirtrem@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:UDstj.3410>
>
>> neither of those issues gave the
>> offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
>> knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
>> defensive set was on every given play)...
>>
>
> Strong words: clear and undeniable advantage, knowing exactly, knowing
> without a doubt.
> Please tell me how you know this to be true - or is it just your
> opinion?

Is it only wrong to do if it actually gives you an advantage? Duh.

--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:59:18 -0600, "PC" <PC@Minneapolis.us> wrote:

:>'patsFan' decided to chime in with:
:>> "Voice-of-Reason" <shirtrem@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
:>> news:UDstj.3410>
:>>
:>>> neither of those issues gave the
:>>> offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
:>>> knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
:>>> defensive set was on every given play)...
:>>>
:>>
:>> Strong words: clear and undeniable advantage, knowing exactly, knowing
:>> without a doubt.
:>> Please tell me how you know this to be true - or is it just your
:>> opinion?
:>
:>Is it only wrong to do if it actually gives you an advantage? Duh.

If that's to be believed there would have been no fines levied.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:13:11 -0800 (PST), Cory
<my_wheel_life@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I just read today some players from the 2002
>> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
>> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>
>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3248055
>
>> I think the suit is for $100M.  This thing isn't
>> going away . . . . .
>
>Sure it is. It's nothing more than a nuisance lawsuit. I don't know
>when a hearing is scheduled on this matter, but I expect the suit to
>be dismissed at the earliest possible moment.
>
>Why did the people who filed this suit wait *5* years to file the
>lawsuit?? Because they would have looked dumber than they already do
>if they hadn't waited for the Cheatriots to get busted by the league
>by their own stupidity... not to mention that they most likely do not
>have ANY evidence to back up their pathetic lawsuit.
>
>--- Cory, NOT a Patriot apologist at all...


I wouldn't count on this one going away anytime soon...

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/02/100-million-cla.html

"This is at least the second class-action over videotaping. A New
Jersey man filed suit in September claiming that fans have a right "to
observe an honest match played" on the field. It's easy to shrug off
class action lawsuits, but given that this latest one is filed by a
person who was involved with one of the league's franchises, it could
have serious repercussions for the image of America's most popular
sport and perhaps the broadcast networks that have paid more than $3
billion for rights to NFL games."

"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47B62DB5.4090402@spamdam.verizon.net...
> Voice-of-Insanity wrote:
>
>> Sri Krsna wrote:
>>
>>> Soot wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>>>
>>>> Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots merely
>>>> got a slap on the wrist.
>>>>
>>> Yes, you're exactly right.
>>> Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
>>> Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>>>
>> Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via superbowls,
>> third party product, playoff checks, careers lost, etc...it is way WORSE
>> than a felony...on par with organized crime. Of course Patriot fans will
>> never admit that because in their eyes it was all okay. The fact that
>> ALL evidence apparently had to be immediately destroyed clearly indicates
>> Goodell is (or I should say "did") covering something up that must have
>> been so devastating to either the Patriots or the NFL in general he just
>> HAD to get rid of all evidence.
>>
>> If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this level
>> with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all be
>> screaming bloody murder...
>
>
> If that's how you truly feel, then stop watching the NFL.
> That's really what any reasonable person who's concluded that the product
> is rotten to the core, something you've stated in the above, would do.
> It's simple enough.
>

Surely all this is overstated?

OK the Pats broke the rules, and they were fined for it. But th efine seems
to me proportionate to the likely benefit gained fromthe offence.

That really ought to be th eend of it

(written by a Bears fan, with no love for the Packers, but with a wish to
keep all this in proportion).

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:20?pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >> I just read today some players from the 2002
> > >> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> > >> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
> >
> > >> I think the suit is for $100M. ?This thing isn't
> > >> going away . . . . .
> >
> > > Should every other team in the league sue the Denver Broncos for
> > > illegally circumventing the salary cap in 1997-98, when they won back-
> > > to-back Super Bowls, because by doing so it created an illegitimate
> > > competitive advantage? ?Should every other team in the league sue the
> > > Miami Dolphins because they illegally hired Don Shula as their coach
> > > way back when, and then he coached them to a couple of Super Bowl
> > > titles? ?I mean, good grief.
> >
> > > John
> >
> > Well, actually no on both counts...neither of those issues gave the
> > offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
> > knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
> > defensive set was on every given play)...

> Goodell already has said that the Patriots didn't gain any advantage
> from taping. If you don't believe him, that's fine. But he's the one

He also said there was no evidence of any filming prior to last
year.

> who reviewed the tapes, not you. He's the one who talked with
> Belichick, not you. So who has a more informed opinion about this:
> you or him? Probably him.

And here he's apparently chaning his mind.

Mike

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:20?pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >> I just read today some players from the 2002

> > And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> > all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...-

> No idea. Maybe because the only person who *needs* to see it is
> Goodell.

Uh, no.

> He is, after all, the commissioner. There's nobody above
> him in the league.

Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
various teams.

Mike

Andrew McGee wrote:

>"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:47B62DB5.4090402@spamdam.verizon.net...
>
>
>>Voice-of-Insanity wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sri Krsna wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Soot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3246788
>>>>>
>>>>>Goodell imposes stiffer fines to players like Pacman, Patriots merely
>>>>>got a slap on the wrist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, you're exactly right.
>>>>Breaking NFL rules for videotaping should be treated just like a felony.
>>>>Toss the bum into the cooler for 90 days, Herr Shultz.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually with the literally billions of dollars involved via superbowls,
>>>third party product, playoff checks, careers lost, etc...it is way WORSE
>>>than a felony...on par with organized crime. Of course Patriot fans will
>>>never admit that because in their eyes it was all okay. The fact that
>>>ALL evidence apparently had to be immediately destroyed clearly indicates
>>>Goodell is (or I should say "did") covering something up that must have
>>>been so devastating to either the Patriots or the NFL in general he just
>>>HAD to get rid of all evidence.
>>>
>>>If Congress pulled a stunt like this (destroying evidence at this level
>>>with no outside, disinterested, investigation), you would all be
>>>screaming bloody murder...
>>>
>>>
>>If that's how you truly feel, then stop watching the NFL.
>>That's really what any reasonable person who's concluded that the product
>>is rotten to the core, something you've stated in the above, would do.
>>It's simple enough.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Surely all this is overstated?
>
>

You don't say....

>OK the Pats broke the rules, and they were fined for it. But th efine seems
>to me proportionate to the likely benefit gained fromthe offence.
>
>That really ought to be th eend of it
>
>(written by a Bears fan, with no love for the Packers, but with a wish to
>keep all this in proportion).
>
>
In a land of dis-reason, the only ones reasonable are the unreasonable.
As such, I await the results of Belichick being weighed against a rooster.

Burn the bastard, I say.......BURN!!!!

On 2008-02-15 22:20:18 -0500, Voice-of-Reason <shirtrem@sbcglobal.net> said:
> And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review
> it...

The rumor from Mike Florio is that the tapes had evidence that several
other teams also engaged in the same practice. He didn't want the
whole league to get tainted by it, but that is exactly what will happen
when the truth gets out.

But should it really matter? Everyone knew that it was going on, so
they were taking counter measures. Such practices go back decades -
it's just that the technology has gotten better and made it easier.
All teams were equally aware that it was going on and equally capable
of defending themselves against it.

Now that Goodell has said that Belichick has been practicing the same
sort of intelligence gathering for many years, do you go back and
punish the Jets? the Browns? the Giants? the Colts? Where does this
end?

Ever since I can remember, video tape of games has been an INTEGRAL
part of coaching and learning about football and scouting. I feel like
we're watching Casablanca with all the faux outrage - "I'm shocked,
shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" NOT!

Round up the usual suspects <sigh>

JJC

"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47B75286.9000609@spamdam.verizon.net...

> In a land of dis-reason, the only ones reasonable are the unreasonable.
> As such, I await the results of Belichick being weighed against a rooster.
>
> Burn the bastard, I say.......BURN!!!!

It's safe to say that for every cheating incident Belichick has been caught
for, there are 10s or 100s more that he hasn't been caught for.

It's clear he has no ethical boundaries, and throughout the country, only
Patriots fans don't see that.

The current Patiots "dynasty" will be mentioned in the same breath as the
black-sox, count on it. This is just beginning, and you'll have to isolate
yourself severely in order to maintain your fantasy that people don't or
shouldn't care.

tide wrote:

>
>It's safe to say that for every cheating incident Belichick has been caught
>for, there are 10s or 100s more that he hasn't been caught for.
>
>It's clear he has no ethical boundaries, and throughout the country, only
>Patriots fans don't see that.
>
>

Well sport, safe to say given the laughable arguments presented in this
thread to disproportionally admonish or berate BB and Pats fans with
your above comment being the latest incarnation, I, and I can also
presume BB feels the same, do not rely on moron troll to define for me
what my ethical standards ought to be.

Keep trying though....

>The current Patiots "dynasty" will be mentioned in the same breath as the
>black-sox, count on it.
>

ROFL

> This is just beginning, and you'll have to isolate
>yourself severely in order to maintain your fantasy that people don't or
>shouldn't care.
>
>
I don't need to isolate myself at all. I know enough people outside of
usenet, colleagues and college buddies included, who are not Pats fans.
Spygate is not a big deal for most of them. Lastly, I never said or
implied that people "don't care or shouldn't care." Work harder on your
reading comprehension and if you had a point worth making, you'd not
feel the need to create phantom arguments. Again, keep trying, sport,
and keep disregarding a mountain of anecdotal evidence that goes back to
the George Halas days where stealing signals and spying was modus
operandi in the league.

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

>>
> I don't need to isolate myself at all. I know enough people outside of
> usenet, colleagues and college buddies included, who are not Pats
> fans. Spygate is not a big deal for most of them. Lastly, I never
> said or implied that people "don't care or shouldn't care." Work
> harder on your reading comprehension and if you had a point worth
> making, you'd not feel the need to create phantom arguments. Again,
> keep trying, sport, and keep disregarding a mountain of anecdotal
> evidence that goes back to the George Halas days where stealing
> signals and spying was modus operandi in the league.

Sorry, the "everyone else is doing it" argument went out of fashion about
the 2nd grade for me and does not fly with most adults.

--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

"WJ" <wj@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h0qtj.34324$ov5.27705@newsfe15.phx...

>I just read today some players from the 2002
> Rams are suing the Pats, Kraft, and Belichick
> for taping their practice before the 2002 SB.
>
> I think the suit is for $100M. This thing isn't
> going away . . . . .

Maybe the issue won't but this law suit will...

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>
>>I don't need to isolate myself at all. I know enough people outside of
>>usenet, colleagues and college buddies included, who are not Pats
>>fans. Spygate is not a big deal for most of them. Lastly, I never
>>said or implied that people "don't care or shouldn't care." Work
>>harder on your reading comprehension and if you had a point worth
>>making, you'd not feel the need to create phantom arguments. Again,
>>keep trying, sport, and keep disregarding a mountain of anecdotal
>>evidence that goes back to the George Halas days where stealing
>>signals and spying was modus operandi in the league.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, the "everyone else is doing it" argument went out of fashion about
>the 2nd grade for me and does not fly with most adults.
>
>
>
Sorry, you tried that stupid retort before and as I told you then,
that's not what I've argued. Read my posts 100 times again and take all
the time you need. What is it about your trolls who willfully disregard
what was written for the sake of creating a phantom argument whereby
your end up arguing with yourself with a few invectives thrown in for
good measure. And we Pats fans are suppose to learn "life lessons" for
your lot? Please. Grow a brain first.

> Well, actually no on both counts...neither of those issues gave the
> offense a clear and undeniable advantage over the defenses (as in
> knowing exactly what audible to call knowing without a doubt what the
> defensive set was on every given play)...
>
> And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...

Defensive signals are critical information to a defensive Coordinator; if they can't protect their own information or change it up
from time to time, that is BAD coaching! ALWAYS assume someone is watching. In the military it is called Operational Security (OPSEC).
Any opposing coach worth his salt would try and gather as much information about his opponent as long as it is "legal".
Belichick violated the rule and "cheated" by taping from an illegal location. I wondered why couldn't he have captured the same
information from a "legal" vantage point. That is as the NFL states. With all the high tech, super zoom cameras we now have you
would think teams could videotape from almost any "legal" vantage point in the stadium. Maybe they do?? Either way Belichick was wrong with what he did. Was he being lazy, arrogant, or just playing mind games with the opposition? Only he and a few people probably know....

On Feb 16, 2:00 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:20?pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >> I just read today some players from the 2002
> > > And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> > > all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it....-
> > No idea.  Maybe because the only person who *needs* to see it is
> > Goodell.
>
> Uh, no.
>
> > He is, after all, the commissioner.  There's nobody above
> > him in the league.
>
> Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
> granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
> controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
> and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
> various teams.
>
> Mike

So because of the anti-trust exemption, the U.S. Congress has
oversight over the NFL?

John

>
> So because of the anti-trust exemption, the U.S. Congress has
> oversight over the NFL?

Not oversight ... a gun to the temple if they wish ...

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:00?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 10:20?pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >> I just read today some players from the 2002
> > > > And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> > > > all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...-
> > > No idea. ?Maybe because the only person who *needs* to see it is
> > > Goodell.
> >
> > Uh, no.
> >
> > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
> > > him in the league.
> >
> > Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
> > granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
> > controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
> > and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
> > various teams.

> So because of the anti-trust exemption,

the NFL is able to operate as a single entity, yes.

> the U.S. Congress has oversight over the NFL?

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.

The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in general.

Mike

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

>>
> Sorry, you tried that stupid retort before and as I told you then,
> that's not what I've argued. Read my posts 100 times again and take
> all the time you need. What is it about your trolls who willfully
> disregard what was written for the sake of creating a phantom
> argument whereby your end up arguing with yourself with a few
> invectives thrown in for good measure. And we Pats fans are suppose
> to learn "life lessons" for your lot? Please. Grow a brain first.

Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. You don't like the message so you attack
the messenger. Typical. The Patriots have soiled their reputation
permanently. I suggest you get over it.

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>
>>Sorry, you tried that stupid retort before and as I told you then,
>>that's not what I've argued. Read my posts 100 times again and take
>>all the time you need. What is it about your trolls who willfully
>>disregard what was written for the sake of creating a phantom
>>argument whereby your end up arguing with yourself with a few
>>invectives thrown in for good measure. And we Pats fans are suppose
>>to learn "life lessons" for your lot? Please. Grow a brain first.
>>
>>
>
>Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. You don't like the message so you attack
>the messenger. Typical. The Patriots have soiled their reputation
>permanently. I suggest you get over it.
>
>
More troll antics. What you're whining about is exactly what you've been
found guilty of and now your antic is recrimination. It was predictable.
Get back to me when you've grown a set of balls, a brain and the
courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be bothered to
consider your post or opinions.

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>>
>> Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. You don't like the message so you
>> attack the messenger. Typical. The Patriots have soiled their
>> reputation permanently. I suggest you get over it.
>>
>>
> More troll antics. What you're whining about is exactly what you've
> been found guilty of

Sorry, no. I do not defend Bill Belichek and his actions. That would be
you.

> and now your antic is recrimination. It was
> predictable.

Gee, did you think that up all by yourself? Or did it occur to you when you
read my last post?

> Get back to me when you've grown a set of balls, a brain

Ah yes, we now see the deep seated issues which have brought you to this
point.

> and the courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be
> bothered to consider your post or opinions.

Well, roll out the aircraft carrier and drape the banner "Mission
Accomplished!"

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>>>Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. You don't like the message so you
>>>attack the messenger. Typical. The Patriots have soiled their
>>>reputation permanently. I suggest you get over it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>More troll antics. What you're whining about is exactly what you've
>>been found guilty of
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, no. I do not defend Bill Belichek and his actions. That would be
>you.
>
>

How many times must I clarify this for you without you feeling the need
to put words into my mouth whereby all you've succeeded in accomplishing
is a phantom argument. Do you never tire of arguing with yourself? How
stupid can even a moron such as yourself possibly be?

Google my posts from Sept in the Pats NG and you'll note I condemned him
for the spygate incident as did many regulars in the Pats NG. But guys
like you who argue for the sake of arguing while hiding behind some
"integrity" or "pursuit of truth" cards are some of the most dishonest
trolls. You've exhited yourself to be just one such lowlife throughout
the course of this thread.

>
>
>>and now your antic is recrimination. It was
>>predictable.
>>
>>
>
>Gee, did you think that up all by yourself? Or did it occur to you when you
>read my last post?
>
>

No, we've had enough troll in the Pats NG and all your antics are indeed
predictable. Anything else stupid you want to add?

>
>
>>Get back to me when you've grown a set of balls, a brain
>>
>>
>
>Ah yes, we now see the deep seated issues which have brought you to this
>point.
>

Actually, answering the likes of your is what brought me to this thread.
That should be fairly obvious and self-evident. Anything else stupid you
want to add?

>>and the courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be
>>bothered to consider your post or opinions.
>>
>>
>Well, roll out the aircraft carrier and drape the banner "Mission
>Accomplished!"
>
>
I take it you're into wearing white sailor's outfit also. Whatever
floats your boat, sport.

On Feb 16, 9:15 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2:00?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 10:20?pm, Voice-of-Reason <shirt...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:21 pm, "WJ" <w...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I just read today some players from the 2002
> > > > > And I am waiting for someone to explain the need for Goodell to destroy
> > > > > all evidence before anybody but him and Billicek (sp) got to review it...-
> > > > No idea. ?Maybe because the only person who *needs* to see it is
> > > > Goodell.
>
> > > Uh, no.
>
> > > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
> > > > him in the league.
>
> > > Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
> > > granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
> > > controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
> > > and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
> > > various teams.
> > So because of the anti-trust exemption,
>
> the NFL is able to operate as a single entity, yes.
>
> > the U.S. Congress has oversight over the NFL?
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.

Why be a jerk about this? I haven't said anything snide to you.

> The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in general.

So Congress can determine the rules under which businesses operate -
rules that have nothing to do with US law? In other words, what if
Congress decided that holding should be 15 yards instead of 10 yards.
Can it determine that? If not, what's the difference between that and
determining where cameras can be located?

John

If you really want to hurt them, make them trade all their quarterbacks
with the Chicago Bears.

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

*revisioninst history and convenient morphing of facts snipped*

>>
>> Ah yes, we now see the deep seated issues which have brought you to
>> this point.
>>
>
> Actually, answering the likes of your is what brought me to this
> thread.

More revisionist history. It was I who initially replied to you. You have
no integrity.

> That should be fairly obvious and self-evident. Anything else
> stupid you want to add?
>

You seem to have that handled quite well.

>>> and the courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be
>>> bothered to consider your post or opinions.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, roll out the aircraft carrier and drape the banner "Mission
>> Accomplished!"
>>
>>
> I take it you're into wearing white sailor's outfit also. Whatever
> floats your boat, sport.

Please keep your sick fantasies to yourself. Thanks.

--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>*revisioninst history and convenient morphing of facts snipped*
>
>
>
>>>Ah yes, we now see the deep seated issues which have brought you to
>>>this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, answering the likes of your is what brought me to this
>>thread.
>>
>>
>
>More revisionist history. It was I who initially replied to you. You have
>no integrity.
>
>

What is it about "answering the like of your [sic]" did you fail to
understand. And you've demonstrated a few times that you're no authority
on "integrity" and it's something I posted in a previous reply to trolls
like. Keep coming back with stupid bullshit, though, troll.

>
>
>>That should be fairly obvious and self-evident. Anything else
>>stupid you want to add?
>>
>>
>>
>
>You seem to have that handled quite well.
>
>
The pitiful thing is that you don't even make a decent troll with
comeback like the above.
But a moron like you will keep reply for the sake of replying.

>
>
>>>>and the courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be
>>>>bothered to consider your post or opinions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, roll out the aircraft carrier and drape the banner "Mission
>>>Accomplished!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I take it you're into wearing white sailor's outfit also. Whatever
>>floats your boat, sport.
>>
>>
>
>Please keep your sick fantasies to yourself. Thanks.
>
>
So, Mr. Earnest and/or "Integrity," did you get around to googling my
post from Sept as I told you to and if so, why have not posted my
so-called defense of Belichick as you've claimed I have a few times? Why
don't you come back with something of substance other than your childish
bullshit? If you're going to assume something about Pats fans, and in
your dull-witted, poor excuse for a mind, Pats fans represent a
"cheating" monolith, and accuse me of having made an argument which I
never made, why can't you back it up, asshole? I'll clue you in. It's
because trolls like you are pieces of shit who try to get through like
with a poor excuse for an attitude, get their asses kicked and need to
assume some moral high-horse for the sake of trolling on the interet
because your lives and accomplishments are so meaningless and void. Work
on bettering yourself.

And you're quite welcome.

"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47B865F9.1030507@spamdam.verizon.net...

>
> What is it about "answering the like of your [sic]" did you fail to
> understand.

I can't help it if you are unable to type what you mean. Maybe you should
have an adult read over your post before hitting send. It could help.

> And you've demonstrated a few times that you're no authority on
> "integrity"

Right, it must be me who advocates cheating. It must be me who has dragged
this thread into the gutter with personal insults. Sure thing, bub.

> and it's something I posted in a previous reply to trolls like. Keep
> coming back with stupid bullshit, though, troll.
>

And you are coming back with *real* nuggest of wisdom. Sure thing, bub.

>>
>>>That should be fairly obvious and self-evident. Anything else
>>>stupid you want to add?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You seem to have that handled quite well.
>>
> The pitiful thing is that you don't even make a decent troll with comeback
> like the above.

When one is not a troll it should not surprise you that I "don't even make a
decent troll". Lord knows what you *really* mean with that sentence. I
have learned not to try and guess your, uh, imaganitive interpretations of
meaning.

> But a moron like you will keep reply for the sake of replying.
>
>>
>>>>>and the courtesy to debate issues with sincerity. Then I might be
>>>>>bothered to consider your post or opinions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Well, roll out the aircraft carrier and drape the banner "Mission
>>>>Accomplished!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I take it you're into wearing white sailor's outfit also. Whatever
>>>floats your boat, sport.
>>>
>>
>>Please keep your sick fantasies to yourself. Thanks.
>>
> So, Mr. Earnest and/or "Integrity," did you get around to googling my post
> from Sept as I told you to and if so,

You want me to dig up evidence for *your* shoddy claims? That is not how it
works pal. *You* made the claim, *you* do the homework.

And you dare to suggest that I have no integrity. No sir, it is quite
obvious who is lacking here. You defended cheating and now are
backpedalling faster than Larry Craig and trying to claim you just have a
"wide stance".

why have not posted my
> so-called defense of Belichick as you've claimed I have a few times?

Uh, go back and look at your "read messages". This is really pretty simple
stuff for most people.

> Why don't you come back with something of substance other than your
> childish bullshit?

I suppose I could start to call you names and use curse words. Is that what
you consider "something of substance"?

> If you're going to assume something about Pats fans, and in your
> dull-witted, poor excuse for a mind, Pats fans represent a "cheating"
> monolith,

More inventing of things I never said.

> and accuse me of having made an argument which I never made, why can't
> you back it up, asshole?

Your curse words have made me realize that indeed, you must be right. After
all, someone who is right curses.

> I'll clue you in.

Oh, this should be good. LOL!

> It's because trolls like you are pieces of shit who try to get through
> like with a poor excuse for an attitude, get their asses kicked and need
> to assume some moral high-horse for the sake of trolling on the interet
> because your lives and accomplishments are so meaningless and void. Work
> on bettering yourself.
>

I wonder about someone who feels the need to constantly make themselves look
like a fool, respond to people they claim to hate, and then claim they are
pretending to take the high ground all the while they hurl insults and curse
words at you. I suggest that you consider your own advice.

> And you're quite welcome.

Yeah, it sure has been fun. I would like fries with that as well. Thanks.

PC wrote:

>"Sri Krsna" <vze3drf7@spamdam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:47B865F9.1030507@spamdam.verizon.net...
>
>
>
>>What is it about "answering the like of your [sic]" did you fail to
>>understand.
>>
>>
>
>I can't help it if you are unable to type what you mean. Maybe you should
>have an adult read over your post before hitting send. It could help.
>
>

LOL....my typos are common especially since I make no effort to read
over my posts when reply to trolls like you.
Again though, I knew you'd pounce on this which is why I pointed it out
in the first place. Understand something, troll, grammar trolls have
always been and are still considered the lowest forms on Usenet. So keep
digging yourself into your own grave, asshole.

>
>
>>And you've demonstrated a few times that you're no authority on
>>"integrity"
>>
>>
>
>Right, it must be me who advocates cheating. It must be me who has dragged
>this thread into the gutter with personal insults. Sure thing, bub.
>
>
How many times must I say this, troll. I never advocated cheating. It's
you who's claiming that I did without backing it up and while hiding
behind the "integrity" card. Here's another life lesson for you given
that you've obviously been cheated out of a decent home education let
alone a decent higher education, an attribute of integrity is one's
sincere drive to getting to the truth without lies, fabrications, false
accusations and hypocrisy. You've failed in your quest and all you have
are strawmen arguments, lies, false accusations, and cheaply trumping
the "integrity" card while showing a total disregard for truth or
integrity. As I said before, dirtbags like you do not define for Pats
fans "integrity." It's something many of us know well about, troll.

>
>
>>and it's something I posted in a previous reply to trolls like. Keep
>>coming back with stupid bullshit, though, troll.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And you are coming back with *real* nuggest of wisdom. Sure thing, bub.
>
>

Again, this is how stupid you are. It's clear from my first post in this
thread that I'm not employing rational or wisdom in crossposted, troll
fodder threads like these. Like flies attracted to shit, trolls like you
pounce on these threads employing all sorts of gutter trash antics. That
applies to you, troll. So keep saying something more clueless and stupid.

>
>
>>>>That should be fairly obvious and self-evident. Anything else
>>>>stupid you want to add?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You seem to have that handled quite well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The pitiful thing is that you don't even make a decent troll with comeback
>>like the above.
>>
>>
>
>When one is not a troll it should not surprise you that I "don't even make a
>decent troll". Lord knows what you *really* mean with that sentence. I
>have learned not to try and guess your, uh, imaganitive interpretations of
>meaning.
>
>
You are a troll and you've been trolling in this very thread. There's no
denying this. Your posts and your antics speak for themselves. So stop
lying and accept your behavior and who you are - a half-assed troll.

Given your attempts are retorts thus far in this thread and in this
post, your replies are predictable so I'll not be bothered to read
through the rest let alone waste my time replying to gutter-trash, troll
antics.

Find my post where I defendes Belichick, something you've claimed over
and over, and post it. Short of that, you lost this exchange and you
lost it before it ever began, Mr. "Integrity."

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:15?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
> > > > > him in the league.
> >
> > > > Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
> > > > granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
> > > > controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
> > > > and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
> > > > various teams.
> > > So because of the anti-trust exemption,
> >
> > the NFL is able to operate as a single entity, yes.
> >
> > > the U.S. Congress has oversight over the NFL?
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.

> Why be a jerk about this? I haven't said anything snide to you.

Why be dense about this? It's not like this is the first time Congress
has called hearings WRT sports in the past year or so, and it's not like
the NFL can even operate the way it does without Congressional approval.

> > The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in general.

> So Congress can determine the rules under which businesses operate -

Uh, yes. Sorry, but again, who do you think regulates US businesses?

> rules that have nothing to do with US law?

You mean, like cheating?

> In other words, what if
> Congress decided that holding should be 15 yards instead of 10 yards.
> Can it determine that? If not, what's the difference between that and
> determining where cameras can be located?

Sorry, again, I just know you're going to be offended, but the issue, so
far as the Senators are now concerned, is not whether there were cameras
involved, but whether there were cameras in violation of NFL rules.

They're not trying to set the rules.

Why is this over your head?

Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...

Mike

On Feb 17, 3:11 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 9:15?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
> > > > > > him in the league.
>
> > > > > Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
> > > > > granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
> > > > > controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
> > > > > and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
> > > > > various teams.
> > > > So because of the anti-trust exemption,
>
> > > the NFL is able to operate as a single entity, yes.
>
> > > > the U.S. Congress has oversight over the NFL?
>
> > > Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.
> > Why be a jerk about this?  I haven't said anything snide to you.
>
> Why be dense about this? It's not like this is the first time Congress
> has called hearings WRT sports in the past year or so, and it's not like
> the NFL can even operate the way it does without Congressional approval.

Steroids and the location of videocameras are two completely different
issues. Steroids are *illegal* according to US law. Baseball was not
doing a good job policing activity that was against federal law. The
placement of video cameras inside a football stadium is *not* a matter
of federal law. Please tell me you see the difference here.

> > > The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in general..
> > So Congress can determine the rules under which businesses operate -
>
> Uh, yes. Sorry, but again, who do you think regulates US businesses?
>
> > rules that have nothing to do with US law?
>
> You mean, like cheating?

LOL!! So you think that Congress can (or should) regulate things like
corked bats, unfairly grabbing jerseys during a basketball game in the
hopes that the refs don't call it...things like that? Are you
remotely serious? Again, the placement of a video camera (which, if
you understood the actual violation of the rule that BB broke, you'd
know this) was the only issue, according to the letter of the NFL law.

> > In other words, what if
> > Congress decided that holding should be 15 yards instead of 10 yards.
> > Can it determine that?  If not, what's the difference between that and
> > determining where cameras can be located?
>
> Sorry, again, I just know you're going to be offended, but the issue, so
> far as the Senators are now concerned, is not whether there were cameras
> involved, but whether there were cameras in violation of NFL rules.

Why on earth - seriously now - should the US senate investigate a
violation of an NFL rule about camera placement, something which is
not remotely a violation of federal law? Can you please answer me
that question?

> They're not trying to set the rules.

But what business is it of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S to get involved
with investigating whether a team, player, or coach broke an *NFL*
rule that has NOTHING to do with federal law...nothing whatsoever?

This is no different than major league baseball telling Terry Francona
that he cannot wear his favorite pullover during games because it
violates MLB rules on the dress code, Francona violating it, and
freaking Arlen Specter calling for congressional hearings on the
matter - after all, they aren't "trying to set the rules", just help
enforce them.

Good grief.

> Why is this over your head?

It's not at all, but you seem to be the one missing the entire point.

> Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...

I really don't know why you're being a jerk to me...I've never done or
said anything remotely mean to you. But I certainly don't need to
continue a conversation with someone who feels ok about hurling
insults at someone who has done them no harm. So......adios. Have a
good life.

John

john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 3:11 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 16, 9:15?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> > > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
>> > > > > > him in the league.
>>
>> > > > > Ever hear of the US government? NFL teams, after all, have been
>> > > > > granted an anti-trust exemption, they are given some leeway in
>> > > > > controlling their broadcasts over government-controlled airways,
>> > > > > and there are various tax dollars spent in funding stadiums for
>> > > > > various teams.
>> > > > So because of the anti-trust exemption,
>>
>> > > the NFL is able to operate as a single entity, yes.
>>
>> > > > the U.S. Congress has oversight over the NFL?
>>
>> > > Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.
>> > Why be a jerk about this?  I haven't said anything snide to you.
>>
>> Why be dense about this? It's not like this is the first time Congress
>> has called hearings WRT sports in the past year or so, and it's not like
>> the NFL can even operate the way it does without Congressional approval.
>
> Steroids and the location of videocameras are two completely different
> issues. Steroids are *illegal* according to US law. Baseball was not
> doing a good job policing activity that was against federal law. The
> placement of video cameras inside a football stadium is *not* a matter
> of federal law. Please tell me you see the difference here.
>
>> > > The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in
>> > > general.
>> > So Congress can determine the rules under which businesses operate -
>>
>> Uh, yes. Sorry, but again, who do you think regulates US businesses?
>>
>> > rules that have nothing to do with US law?
>>
>> You mean, like cheating?
>
> LOL!! So you think that Congress can (or should) regulate things like
> corked bats, unfairly grabbing jerseys during a basketball game in the
> hopes that the refs don't call it...things like that? Are you
> remotely serious? Again, the placement of a video camera (which, if
> you understood the actual violation of the rule that BB broke, you'd
> know this) was the only issue, according to the letter of the NFL law.
>
>> > In other words, what if
>> > Congress decided that holding should be 15 yards instead of 10 yards.
>> > Can it determine that?  If not, what's the difference between that and
>> > determining where cameras can be located?
>>
>> Sorry, again, I just know you're going to be offended, but the issue, so
>> far as the Senators are now concerned, is not whether there were cameras
>> involved, but whether there were cameras in violation of NFL rules.
>
> Why on earth - seriously now - should the US senate investigate a
> violation of an NFL rule about camera placement, something which is
> not remotely a violation of federal law? Can you please answer me
> that question?

just goes to show ya how dumb and idiotic our politicians have become.
these fools are making themelves a laughing stock not only in this country
but around the world......and they blame bush....if this isn't the pot
calling the kettle black I don't know what is.



>
>> They're not trying to set the rules.
>
> But what business is it of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S to get involved
> with investigating whether a team, player, or coach broke an *NFL*
> rule that has NOTHING to do with federal law...nothing whatsoever?
>
> This is no different than major league baseball telling Terry Francona
> that he cannot wear his favorite pullover during games because it
> violates MLB rules on the dress code, Francona violating it, and
> freaking Arlen Specter calling for congressional hearings on the
> matter - after all, they aren't "trying to set the rules", just help
> enforce them.
>
> Good grief.
>
>> Why is this over your head?
>
> It's not at all, but you seem to be the one missing the entire point.
>
>> Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...
>
> I really don't know why you're being a jerk to me...I've never done or
> said anything remotely mean to you. But I certainly don't need to
> continue a conversation with someone who feels ok about hurling
> insults at someone who has done them no harm. So......adios. Have a
> good life.
>
> John

--
Only a FOOL would believe in the FOLLY of Global Warming
Al Gore's movie IS an opinion (or more accurately a political device), and
there's very little 'scientific evidence' in it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/07stormcnd.html?ei=5065&en=1bb1732aba749ac9&ex=1200286800&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1199718180-11vT1Os9DH52pB43B/S+vg
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

<john.vampatella@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c946727-38d7-431c-a83d-959daea21219@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 3:11 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> > Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...

> I really don't know why you're being a jerk to me...I've never done or
> said anything remotely mean to you. But I certainly don't need to
> continue a conversation with someone who feels ok about hurling
> insults at someone who has done them no harm. So......adios. Have a
> good life.

Fester has self esteem issues and a pronounced anti-social streak.

But in this case he does have a point.

Let's do a thought experiment - bear with me.

Let's say the NFL was found to be systematically fixing all their games and
that the corruption went straight to the top, to the commisioner's office.
All those stadiums built partially with public money were found to be used
for games which were not in fact fair competitions. It was all a ruse
played on the (paying) public.

Do you think the federal government would be within their jurisdiction to do
something about that?

Yes or no.

If yes, how is it different than doing something about a team systematically
cheating?

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:

>
> LOL....my typos are common especially since I make no effort to read
> over my posts when reply to trolls like you.

Yet you keep making the effort to reply. Kinda makes you look dumb, ya
know?

> Again though, I knew you'd pounce on this which is why I pointed it
> out in the first place.

Yes you are so on to me you keep replying. Very clever.

> Understand something, troll, grammar trolls
> have always been and are still considered the lowest forms on Usenet.

Grammar has nothing to do with it. It's about expressing what you mean
instead of making up quotes. I am still waiting for you retraction at your
ridiculous assertion you accuse me of. I see you conveniently clipped that.

> So keep digging yourself into your own grave, asshole.
>

Again - please keep your sick fantasies to yourself.

>>
> How many times must I say this, troll. I never advocated cheating.

Mmm hmmm. Yep.

> It's you who's claiming that I did without backing it up

Do you have alzheimer's?

> As I said before, dirtbags
> like you do not define for Pats fans "integrity." It's something many

There you go again!

> of us know well about, troll.
>>

*snip*

> Again, this is how stupid you are. It's clear from my first post in
> this thread that I'm not employing rational or wisdom in crossposted,
> troll fodder threads like these. Like flies attracted to shit, trolls

OK... I can live with that. I am the fly. What does that make you?

>>
> You are a troll and you've been trolling in this very thread.

Who keeps arguing about nonsensical fantasy events? Who keeps painting my
position into a broader brush despite several corrections? Who has hurled
personal insults and profanity? That person, kimbo sabe, is the troll in
this thread.

> There's
> no denying this.

Indeed.

> Your posts and your antics speak for themselves.

All I ever did was say that Belicheck cheated. It is you who harbors some
fantasy he did not.

> So
> stop lying and accept your behavior and who you are - a half-assed
> troll.

More swearing and name calling from the troll...

> Given your attempts are retorts thus far in this thread and in this
> post, your replies are predictable so I'll not be bothered to read

Again?

> through the rest let alone waste my time replying to gutter-trash,
> troll antics.
>
> Find my post where I defendes Belichick, something you've claimed over

Is that Spanish?

> and over, and post it. Short of that, you lost this exchange and you
> lost it before it ever began, Mr. "Integrity."

More name calling...

--
CIA DEA DIA FBI KGB NSA WMD TLA

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:11?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 9:15?pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> > > > In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers john.vampate...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > He is, after all, the commissioner. ?There's nobody above
> > > > > > > him in the league.

> >
> > > > Sorry, I didn't realize it was a difficult concept for you.
> > > Why be a jerk about this? ?I haven't said anything snide to you.
> >
> > Why be dense about this? It's not like this is the first time Congress
> > has called hearings WRT sports in the past year or so, and it's not like
> > the NFL can even operate the way it does without Congressional approval.

> Steroids and the location of videocameras are two completely different
> issues.

Which is fine and dandy, but Congress is not investigating "the location
of videocameras". Perhaps news travels more slowly to your location than
it does to the rest of us, but Congress is investigating whether or not
a team engaged in illegal activities to gain an advantage in an industry
granted an exemption by the US Congress. Further, they are attempting to
ascertain whether actions taken by the NFL are consistent with those of
an organization doing its utmost to hunt violators and ensure a level
playing field.

Again, not terribly complicated. Why is it giving you so much trouble?

> Steroids are *illegal* according to US law.

Really?

So, can you please explain why "steriods" are available over-the-counter
(see McGwire's androstion supplement) and by prescription?

Thanks ever so large.

> doing a good job policing activity that was against federal law. The
> placement of video cameras inside a football stadium is *not* a matter
> of federal law. Please tell me you see the difference here.

Please tell me you misquoted yourself with "Steroids are illegal
according to US law", or cite the appropriate law.

> > > > The answer is "yes", as it has oversight over US businesses in general.
> > > So Congress can determine the rules under which businesses operate -

> > Uh, yes. Sorry, but again, who do you think regulates US businesses?

> > > rules that have nothing to do with US law?
> >
> > You mean, like cheating?

> LOL!!

I'm curious why you believe cheating in athletic events is funny.

> So you think that Congress can (or should) regulate things like
> corked bats,

Congress does not do that; that is one of the things baseball regulates.
There are, and have been, investigations into the matter at various
times, and action (including suspension) taken.

I am unaware of MLB deciding to close such an investigation by saying
"The batter turned over all his bats, we didn't find any violation, so
we destroyed them."

> hopes that the refs don't call it...things like that? Are you
> remotely serious?

> Again, the placement of a video camera (which, if
> you understood the actual violation of the rule that BB broke, you'd

Uh, no, the matter being investigated now (since you do NOT remember)
was prompted by a claim that someone on Belichick's staff filmed
a walk-through prior to the Super Bowl when the presence of someone on
his staff was NOT allowed.

Again, not terribly complicated.

> > Sorry, again, I just know you're going to be offended, but the issue, so
> > far as the Senators are now concerned, is not whether there were cameras
> > involved, but whether there were cameras in violation of NFL rules.

> Why on earth - seriously now - should the US senate investigate a
> violation of an NFL rule about camera placement, something which is

Hmm, to ensure the fairness of an industry which is enjoying an
anti-trust exemption? And which destroyed evidence in its only
known previous investigation?

> not remotely a violation of federal law? Can you please answer me
> that question?

How many times does this need to be answered?

Seriously, how slow are you?

> > They're not trying to set the rules.

> But what business is it of our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S to get involved
> with investigating whether a team, player, or coach broke an *NFL*
> rule that has NOTHING to do with federal law...nothing whatsoever?

Sorry, again, I know you're very slow, but the nature of the business
of the NFL is fair competitiveness. If the NFL is not aggressively
pursuing suspected violations of this business, then Congress does,
in fact, have the right to investigate, as it does EVERY business
suspected of not doing enough to ensure fair operation.

Do you only read sports sections and comic pages?

> This is no different than major league baseball telling Terry Francona
> that he cannot wear his favorite pullover during games because it
> violates MLB rules on the dress code, Francona violating it, and
> freaking Arlen Specter calling for congressional hearings on the

No, MLB sets that rule, and enforces it, and has numerous precedents
in that regard.

I take back what I asked above: you do not seem to have read sports
pages, either.

> > Why is this over your head?

> It's not at all, but you seem to be the one missing the entire point.

> > Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...

> I really don't know why you're being a jerk to me...I've never done or
> said anything remotely mean to you. But I certainly don't need to
> continue a conversation with someone who feels ok about hurling
> insults at someone who has done them no harm. So......adios. Have a
> good life.

Thanks.

Mike

"tide" <none> wrote in message
news:SYCdneNU-MMcLyXanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> <john.vampatella@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8c946727-38d7-431c-a83d-959daea21219@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 3:11 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> > Ah, Patriots fan, yes? Explains much...
>
>> I really don't know why you're being a jerk to me...I've never done or
>> said anything remotely mean to you. But I certainly don't need to
>> continue a conversation with someone who feels ok about hurling
>> insults at someone who has done them no harm. So......adios. Have a
>> good life.
>
> Fester has self esteem issues and a pronounced anti-social streak.
>
> But in this case he does have a point.
>
> Let's do a thought experiment - bear with me.
>
> Let's say the NFL was found to be systematically fixing all their games
> and that the corruption went straight to the top, to the commisioner's
> office. All those stadiums built partially with public money were found to
> be used for games which were not in fact fair competitions. It was all a
> ruse played on the (paying) public.
>
> Do you think the federal government would be within their jurisdiction to
> do something about that?
>
> Yes or no.


No.

1) The government did not provide money to build Gillette stadium.
2) Even if the state government did provide money, as is often the case for
new stadiums, it wouldn't be within the federal government's jurisdiction.
3) Whether or not cheating occurs is inconsequential. The government
doesn't provide money to promote entertainment or to improve the game; they
do it to bring money into the state. The Patriots have succeeded.

The only reason the federal government is getting involved is because of the
antitrust exemption. Not because of stadiums or infrastructure or anything
else. And, believe it or not, but there are actually some of us who are
against antitrust laws. There are others who support antitrust laws but
oppose exemptions. Leave it to football fans, though, to have such bias for
or against a team that they'll sell out their beliefs just so that the
government will stick their noses into the drama.

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers Tony <tony_giacometti@hotmail.com> wrote:
> john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:

> --
> Only a FOOL would believe in the FOLLY of Global Warming
> Al Gore's movie IS an opinion (or more accurately a political device), and
> there's very little 'scientific evidence' in it.

Right; that's why the polar ice caps aren't melting.

Mike

"MZ" <mark@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:h4OdnWGtg-zzJiXanZ2dnUVZ_tOtnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "tide" <none> wrote in message
>> Fester has self esteem issues and a pronounced anti-social streak.
>>
>> But in this case he does have a point.
>>
>> Let's do a thought experiment - bear with me.
>>
>> Let's say the NFL was found to be systematically fixing all their games
>> and that the corruption went straight to the top, to the commisioner's
>> office. All those stadiums built partially with public money were found
>> to be used for games which were not in fact fair competitions. It was
>> all a ruse played on the (paying) public.
>>
>> Do you think the federal government would be within their jurisdiction to
>> do something about that?
>>
>> Yes or no.
>
>
> No.
>
> 1) The government did not provide money to build Gillette stadium.
> 2) Even if the state government did provide money, as is often the case
> for new stadiums, it wouldn't be within the federal government's
> jurisdiction.
> 3) Whether or not cheating occurs is inconsequential. The government
> doesn't provide money to promote entertainment or to improve the game;
> they do it to bring money into the state. The Patriots have succeeded.

> The only reason the federal government is getting involved is because of
> the antitrust exemption.

Actually, the only reason the gov't is involved is because a lot of people
care about the Patriots cheating.

(And, of course, the gov't is within its legal bounds ... obviously. Please
sue them for invasion of privacy or illegal search and siezure if you
believe otherwise.)

Steroids are illegal but would the gov't get involved if people didn't care
about cheating in baseball? Of course not.

The reason this is blowing up is because PEOPLE CARE.

Now who do you think is more biased, fans of the cheating team, or EVERYBODY
ELSE? Because those are really the only two sides in this issue. It's
hillarious that fans of the cheating team are the ones pointing the finger
about people being 'overly biased'.

San Francisco fans do the same for Barry Bonds. It's no less transparent
and silly for Pats fans to whine about their team's treatment.

> Not because of stadiums or infrastructure or anything else. And, believe
> it or not, but there are actually some of us who are against antitrust
> laws. There are others who support antitrust laws but oppose exemptions.
> Leave it to football fans, though, to have such bias for or against a team
> that they'll sell out their beliefs just so that the government will stick
> their noses into the drama.

Ridiculous rationalizations and bias.

In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers MZ <mark@nospam.void> wrote:
> "tide" <none> wrote in message
> news:SYCdneNU-MMcLyXanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > <john.vampatella@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c946727-38d7-431c-a83d-959daea21219@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 17, 3:11 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> > and that the corruption went straight to the top, to the commisioner's
> > office. All those stadiums built partially with public money were found to
> > be used for games which were not in fact fair competitions. It was all a
> > ruse played on the (paying) public.
> >
> > Do you think the federal government would be within their jurisdiction to
> > do something about that?
> >
> > Yes or no.


> No.

> 1) The government did not provide money to build Gillette stadium.

And yet, the Patriots operate in an organization which routinely takes
taxpayer monies to fund their stadia.

Oh, and they belong to an organization which enjoys a FEDERAL anti-trust
exemption, allowing them to skirt several regulations which might
otherwise bite into a very lucarative pie.

> 2) Even if the state government did provide money, as is often the case for
> new stadiums, it wouldn't be within the federal government's jurisdiction.

One is forced to wonder why Congress disagrees..

Seriously, do any of you KNOW what Congress' jurisdiction is?

> 3) Whether or not cheating occurs is inconsequential.

And isn't the issue.

The issue is that whether the organization enjoying siad protections
above is doing enough to prevent cheating.

> The only reason the federal government is getting involved is because of the
> antitrust exemption.

Sorry, but the fed gets involved in any number of high-profile buisness
practices, as you'd know if you bothered to read more than the funnes.

> Not because of stadiums or infrastructure or anything
> else. And, believe it or not, but there are actually some of us who are
> against antitrust laws. There are others who support antitrust laws but
> oppose exemptions. Leave it to football fans, though, to have such bias for
> or against a team that they'll sell out their beliefs just so that the
> government will stick their noses into the drama.

Or, leave it to football fans to want a thorough investigation into
whether or not an organtization (or organizations) have attempted to
cheat, and not been punished for it.

Sort of goes right to the integrity of the game.

Mike

In alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys tide <none> wrote:

> Steroids are illegal but would the gov't get involved if people didn't care

There are steroids which are completely legal, and sold
over-the-counter.

I don't know why people have so much trouble with this...

Mike

<mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:fpaf9t$5l1$5@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys tide <none> wrote:
>
>> Steroids are illegal but would the gov't get involved if people didn't
>> care
>
> There are steroids which are completely legal, and sold
> over-the-counter.
>
> I don't know why people have so much trouble with this...

Because most people are capable of deriving context from the necessary
shorthand which makes up verbal communication.

Then there are people like you, for whom people like me would need to go
into excrutiating detail to cover for your cognitive difficulties.

To wit: the type of steroids taken and the manner in which they were taken
by Clemens or Bonds et al, are illegal.

You're welcome.

mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> In alt.sports.football.pro.gb-packers Tony <tony_giacometti@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> john.vampatella@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> --
>> Only a FOOL would believe in the FOLLY of Global Warming
>> Al Gore's movie IS an opinion (or more accurately a political device),
>> and there's very little 'scientific evidence' in it.
>
> Right; that's why the polar ice caps aren't melting.
>
> Mike


have you been there to watch them melt? OR are you foolish enough to believe
someone who gets a grant for lying to you about these things to keep that
paycheck coming.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather/

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/04/wbears04.xml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811

http://newsbusters.org/node/10804

--
Only a FOOL would believe in the FOLLY of Global Warming
Al Gore's movie IS an opinion (or more accurately a political device), and
there's very little 'scientific evidence' in it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/07stormcnd.html?ei=5065&en=1bb1732aba749ac9&ex=1200286800&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1199718180-11vT1Os9DH52pB43B/S+vg
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619301/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

Hey asshole, you lost. Deal with it.
And I'm done wasting time with lying a piece of shit like you, and
again, I cannot be bothered to read your latest attempt of backtracking.
If you've ever in Boston, you e-mail me if you have something more to
say. Short of that, fuck off tool.


PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>
>>LOL....my typos are common especially since I make no effort to read
>>over my posts when reply to trolls like you.
>>
>>
>
>Yet you keep making the effort to reply. Kinda makes you look dumb, ya
>know?
>
>
>
>>Again though, I knew you'd pounce on this which is why I pointed it
>>out in the first place.
>>
>>
>
>Yes you are so on to me you keep replying. Very clever.
>
>
>
>>Understand something, troll, grammar trolls
>>have always been and are still considered the lowest forms on Usenet.
>>
>>
>
>Grammar has nothing to do with it. It's about expressing what you mean
>instead of making up quotes. I am still waiting for you retraction at your
>ridiculous assertion you accuse me of. I see you conveniently clipped that.
>
>
>
>>So keep digging yourself into your own grave, asshole.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Again - please keep your sick fantasies to yourself.
>
>
>
>>How many times must I say this, troll. I never advocated cheating.
>>
>>
>
>Mmm hmmm. Yep.
>
>
>
>>It's you who's claiming that I did without backing it up
>>
>>
>
>Do you have alzheimer's?
>
>
>
>>As I said before, dirtbags
>>like you do not define for Pats fans "integrity." It's something many
>>
>>
>
>There you go again!
>
>
>
>>of us know well about, troll.
>>
>>
>
>*snip*
>
>
>
>>Again, this is how stupid you are. It's clear from my first post in
>>this thread that I'm not employing rational or wisdom in crossposted,
>>troll fodder threads like these. Like flies attracted to shit, trolls
>>
>>
>
>OK... I can live with that. I am the fly. What does that make you?
>
>
>
>>You are a troll and you've been trolling in this very thread.
>>
>>
>
>Who keeps arguing about nonsensical fantasy events? Who keeps painting my
>position into a broader brush despite several corrections? Who has hurled
>personal insults and profanity? That person, kimbo sabe, is the troll in
>this thread.
>
>
>
>>There's
>>no denying this.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>
>
>>Your posts and your antics speak for themselves.
>>
>>
>
>All I ever did was say that Belicheck cheated. It is you who harbors some
>fantasy he did not.
>
>
>
>>So
>>stop lying and accept your behavior and who you are - a half-assed
>>troll.
>>
>>
>
>More swearing and name calling from the troll...
>
>
>
>>Given your attempts are retorts thus far in this thread and in this
>>post, your replies are predictable so I'll not be bothered to read
>>
>>
>
>Again?
>
>
>
>>through the rest let alone waste my time replying to gutter-trash,
>>troll antics.
>>
>>Find my post where I defendes Belichick, something you've claimed over
>>
>>
>
>Is that Spanish?
>
>
>
>>and over, and post it. Short of that, you lost this exchange and you
>>lost it before it ever began, Mr. "Integrity."
>>
>>
>
>More name calling...
>
>
>

"tide" <none> wrote in message
news:37ydne9AjYbNXyXanZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast.com...

>>> Steroids are illegal but would the gov't get involved if people didn't
>>> care

>> There are steroids which are completely legal, and sold
>> over-the-counter.
>>
>> I don't know why people have so much trouble with this...

> Because most people are capable of deriving context from the necessary
> shorthand which makes up verbal communication.
>
> Then there are people like you, for whom people like me would need to go
> into excrutiating detail to cover for your cognitive difficulties.
>
> To wit: the type of steroids taken and the manner in which they were taken
> by Clemens or Bonds et al, are illegal.
>
> You're welcome.

I give this an A+ for how to deal with someone hung up on semantics. Well
done!

'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
> Hey asshole, you lost. Deal with it.

Says the guy cursing with ever more frequency. A sure sign of a winner.

> And I'm done wasting time with lying a piece of shit like you,

For the third time? FYI, your declaration becomes increasingly innaccurate
each time you make it.

> and
> again, I cannot be bothered to read your latest attempt of
> backtracking.

I don't blame you for not reading it since you have been schooled in front
of several NGs, over the course of several days.

> If you've ever in Boston, you e-mail me if you have
> something more to say. Short of that, fuck off tool.
>

Damn. I should have predicted physical threats. I just did not think it
would be this early.

I understand now that it is best to leave you alone. I hope I can sleep
tonight.

PC wrote:

>'Sri Krsna' decided to chime in with:
>
>
>>Hey asshole, you lost. Deal with it.
>>
>>
>Says the guy cursing with ever more frequency. A sure sign of a winner.
>
>

I have no problems with calling assholes assholes and this should have
been clear.
But I see you're one of the tools who's hung up on reply to every single
line of my throw-away post, so given that your MO here is also
transparent, I'll oblige.

>
>
>>And I'm done wasting time with lying a piece of shit like you,
>>
>>
>For the third time? FYI, your declaration becomes increasingly innaccurate
>each time you make it.
>
>
Fine, I'll waste time and concede that trivial point to you. How
desperate for a win can you get. Regardless, you're still a lying piece
of shit and that point will not and cannot be conceded.

>>and
>>again, I cannot be bothered to read your latest attempt of
>>backtracking.
>>
>>
>
>I don't blame you for not reading it since you have been schooled in front
>of several NGs, over the course of several days.
>
Schooled eh? Well, sport, it's not me who's trying to wash his ass by