Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009
[COLOR=Red][<snip redundant interpretations>
In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.
All the best.
|
All the best to you as well.
He already abundantly and clearly stated that, and in reading your assertations, you did not counter his statements. You are choosing your opinion, which I also do not agree with.
Three simple things that do not need a day of your time to respond to, because there is no response to them. They are fact.
- There were two guages that read different pressures, yet still allowed to be used, clearing showing the lazy and inconcequential attitude towards ball pressure reading (no logging, differing guages)
- It is easily reproducible to mimic and exceed the the scenario in the game with a combination of science and differing guages
- There were near equal readings for balls for both teams (before time ran out to continue reading ball pressures)
"Mr. Brady" never claimed to not know about the ball pressure rules. I'm not sure where you got that from, and you make a lot of assertations based on him claiming to not know the rules of the sport.