Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87
I'm not looking at the 3rd party analysis, I'm looking at the results from numerous other science organizations that replicated the game conditions and show that their could have been 1.5+ psi loss due to the environment. You ignore this point, and focus on something that i never brought up.
You keep with your opinion that i did not read the report despite me saying the opposite; similar to what Wells did when given explanations that contradicted his hypothesis. Why would i lie about this?
Anyways, i see you're from DC, and like most people in DC, you are firm in your opinion and won't listen to anything that doesn't support it.
No sense discussing it further, since after this season when they actually will test balls in game conditions, we will see that balls indeed lose pressure through the game. Also, deflated balls obviously don't gain a competitive advantage since the Pats destroyed the Colts in the 2nd half after a relatively close 1st half.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87
|
I've now read your second article. This is the concluding statement of Dale Syphers, the scientist Ben Gardner consulted for that article, "I can go into the rest of the rest of the report, the technical part of that report, and tell you what a good job they did on A, B, C, D, E and F.
They did exactly what they should do and I agree with the conclusions." That's his conclusion in spite of the evaporation-specific test he points out as having been omitted.
That quote above is in the final paragraph of the article. I give Fox credit for the completeness of their reporting. But boy do Fox know well how to "bury the headline."
Blue:
Yes, I did. I did because it's clear to me that you either (1) didn't read it or (2) read it and didn't understand it, or (3) read it, understood it, but didn't correctly determine which factors should have more or less weight in guiding your views about the report's conclusions. I can't which it might be, but substantively, there's not much difference. Were this some 20+ years ago and I were grading an essay you turned in on the topic, I'd have given the same grade regardless of which of the three was the actual cause for the the thoughts you expressed.
Red:
You're darn right I am firm in my positions, especially when nobody offers a cogent reason for me not to be. I'm not inflexible, but I do know a better argument from a not-as-good one. I'm willing to say I'm wrong when I'm wrong, but I'm not gonna "be wrong," accept that my thinking was/is in error, merely because someone says I'm wrong. I'm that way because (1) I know I haven't an "axe to grind," and (2) in 30+ years, I've been right far more than I've been wrong, but mind you, I have been wrong. I'm certainly not infallible or perfect, but I'm "better than the average bear, Boo Boo."
All the best.