Page 1 of 1
"Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:54 am
by Pwns
http://city-journal.org/html/statistica ... 14968.html
What was that Obama was saying about facts and reason again?
Who needs evidence when it's self-evident that police kill black men 'cause racism? Data be all racist n sheeit.

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:58 am
by Chizzang
Where's Roger Goodell...
He'll explain how we can assume guilt based on a general feeling

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:56 am
by Baldy
Chizzang wrote:Where's Roger Goodell...
He'll explain how we can assume guilt based on a general feeling

Yeah, preponderance of the evidence be damned.

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:43 am
by Chizzang
Baldy wrote:Chizzang wrote:Where's Roger Goodell...
He'll explain how we can assume guilt based on a general feeling

Yeah, preponderance of the evidence be damned.

The preponderance of evidence was that the Patriots were deflating balls (no question)
There is however no evidence that they were deflating them below league specified minimums
The league commissioned a study of ball inflation vs. game use in 2016
and guess what... It'll never make it to the light of day
Why..?
Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:55 pm
by GannonFan
Chizzang wrote:Baldy wrote:
Yeah, preponderance of the evidence be damned.

The preponderance of evidence was that the Patriots were deflating balls (no question)
There is however no evidence that they were deflating them below league specified minimums
The league commissioned a study of ball inflation vs. game use in 2016
and guess what... It'll never make it to the light of day
Why..?
I dunno, kind of like how the league destroyed all those tapes the Pats gave them of what the Pats were taping during the games of the other sideline. Shocking the league didn't let everyone see the extent or detail of what was on those tapes.

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:22 pm
by Chizzang
GannonFan wrote:Chizzang wrote:
The preponderance of evidence was that the Patriots were deflating balls (no question)
There is however no evidence that they were deflating them below league specified minimums
The league commissioned a study of ball inflation vs. game use in 2016
and guess what... It'll never make it to the light of day
Why..?
I dunno, kind of like how the league destroyed all those tapes the Pats gave them of what the Pats were taping during the games of the other sideline. Shocking the league didn't let everyone see the extent or detail of what was on those tapes.

Breaking:
The league is still trying to catch teams filming in unsanctioned locations
It's a problem that won't go away
And ball deflation is still a problem
As The Steelers and Bronco's can attest
both teams were accused this year of having suspiciously "soft balls"
But the league very quickly swept that under the rug
Because it
1) Proves that cold balls deflate and get soft
2) Or teams are doing it still
Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:50 pm
by GannonFan
Chizzang wrote:GannonFan wrote:
I dunno, kind of like how the league destroyed all those tapes the Pats gave them of what the Pats were taping during the games of the other sideline. Shocking the league didn't let everyone see the extent or detail of what was on those tapes.

Breaking:
The league is still trying to catch teams filming in unsanctioned locations
It's a problem that won't go away
Why would it go away when the Patriots pretty much got away with it? The NFL basically said "go ahead and do it - if you get caught red-handed, we'll fine you and dock you some draft picks, but we'll destroy the evidence so that no one will ever be able to definitively question your legacy".

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:00 pm
by Chizzang
GannonFan wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Breaking:
The league is still trying to catch teams filming in unsanctioned locations
It's a problem that won't go away
Why would it go away when the Patriots pretty much got away with it? The NFL basically said "go ahead and do it - if you get caught red-handed, we'll fine you and dock you some draft picks, but we'll destroy the evidence so that no one will ever be able to definitively question your legacy".

Everybody is free to question the Patriots legacy
The league has done nothing to change peoples ability to question legitimacy of any team
In fact please continue
New England Soup of the day: The delicious tears of our enemies

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:42 pm
by Baldy
Chizzang wrote:Baldy wrote:
Yeah, preponderance of the evidence be damned.

The preponderance of evidence was that the Patriots were deflating balls (no question)
There is however no evidence that they were deflating them below league specified minimums
The league commissioned a study of ball inflation vs. game use in 2016
and guess what... It'll never make it to the light of day
Why..?
Doesn't matter. That's not why Brady was suspended.
Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:24 pm
by Chizzang
Baldy wrote:Chizzang wrote:
The preponderance of evidence was that the Patriots were deflating balls (no question)
There is however no evidence that they were deflating them below league specified minimums
The league commissioned a study of ball inflation vs. game use in 2016
and guess what... It'll never make it to the light of day
Why..?
Doesn't matter. That's not why Brady was suspended.
Indeed,
None of it matters
Because the Patriots haven't skipped a beat
The team still secured the No. 1 seed
It's upped the value of their back-up quarterback significantly
Given valuable game experience to their No. 3 QB
and succeeded in rallying the team
So, for sure... It absolutely doesn't matter (except maybe as motivation)

Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:42 pm
by JohnStOnge
I can't prove it but I have always believed that those Justice Department investigations of police departments are a sham. Don't think they have any credibility at all. If they ever do one and end up saying "Nope. The police department is NOT engaging in a pattern of whatever" I might change my mind. But I've pretty much come to believe that they know what they're conclusion's going to be before they start.
Re: "Statistical Evidence Not Required"
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:40 pm
by BDKJMU
JohnStOnge wrote:I can't prove it but I have always believed that those Justice Department investigations of police departments are a sham. Don't think they have any credibility at all. If they ever do one and end up saying "Nope. The police department is NOT engaging in a pattern of whatever" I might change my mind. But I've pretty much come to believe that they know what they're conclusion's going to be before they start.
And you voted for the candidate who wanted to do more of these sham investigations...