Re: Ravens are blaming officials AGAIN!
posted at 10/4/2009 10:26 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Ravens are blaming officials AGAIN!
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Ravens are blaming officials AGAIN! : I've tried moving on past SpyGate. When people keep bringing it up, it naturally bothers me. And yes, using steroids is against the rules. Those rules are called laws. Those laws were written by the government. Since the NFL is in the United States, yes, those rules still apply to them. The argument holds when people argue against SpyGate on moral grounds. Instead of arguing against SpyGate on merit, I attacked it from the moral standpoint. In a logic sequence, you only have to destroy one premise for the other sides' argument to fall apart. The illegal motion call: -The line was not set when Baker moved out wide to the left. If the line was set, then he would have had to step back while the left flanker stepped forward -Baker was not moving at the time of the snap - there was a discernible pause On the roughing calls - I'm quite well aware of the rules. I didn't argue against them, I only pointed out that they offered no advantage to either team. And at no point should it be unreasonable to expect a reasonable response to a reasonable postulation.
Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]
1. Who mentioned steroids?
2. You don't destroy any premise. You only compare it to other acts of cheating. That is a rationalization. Aside from that, who is arguing that SpyGate is relevant from a moralistic standpoint? I generally see people say a rule was broken. In reading your post (time and time again), you aren't taking a moral stance anyway.
3. The line was set. Baker was the only one moving during the replay.
4. You added these items in the list of things that were incorrect. If you meant something else, don't group them together.
5. It is not reasonable to ask a cat the time. The question is reasonable; The expectation of an answer isn't. Stop using absolutes.
6. Yours weren't postulations. A postulation is an axiom. You did postulate some questions though.
7. Nothing on the self-congratulatory repetition.