Deflategate and Science Ignorance
-
When it comes to science judges are the worst people to ask to make decisions about its implications. Take deflategate and the alleged tampering of footballs by the Patriots. The science says nothing was tampered with and all was within the limits of what was to be expected. Also the evidence says that the Patriots did not have any advantage as the footballs were inflated at halftime and the Patriots stomped the Colts in the second half.
1- No evidence of tampering
2- No evidence for any advantage gained
So what was Brady guilty of besides winning?
Even a middle school student proved there wasn't any tampering. So why are judges so fucking stupid and ignorant? Clearly the judges had their minds made up before hearing the appeal.
It is a sad day for the American judicial system. Judges Barrington D. Parker and Denny Chin choked and proved they are ignorant and possibly corrupt. Chin is especially one ignorant asshole who definitely had his mind made up before the case was even heard.
When it comes to science judges are the worst people to ask to make decisions about its implications. Take deflategate and the alleged tampering of footballs by the Patriots. The science says nothing was tampered with and all was within the limits of what was to be expected. Also the evidence says that the Patriots did not have any advantage as the footballs were inflated at halftime and the Patriots stomped the Colts in the second half.
1- No evidence of tampering
2- No evidence for any advantage gained
So what was Brady guilty of besides winning?
Even a middle school student proved there wasn't any tampering. So why are judges so fucking stupid and ignorant? Clearly the judges had their minds made up before hearing the appeal.
It is a sad day for the American judicial system. Judges Barrington D. Parker and Denny Chin choked and proved they are ignorant and possibly corrupt. Chin is especially one ignorant asshole who definitely had his mind made up before the case was even heard.
posted by Joe G @ 12:04 PM
60 Comments:
At 5:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/may/06/fuckin-watermelons-coming-the-incriminating-deflategate-texts-in-full
At 7:50 PM,
Joe G said…
And Richie is also ignorant of the science. No surprise there.
Lynn 7th-grader wins science fair with Deflategate project
Richie never made it past third grade.
And BTW, it is legal to deflate balls to 12.5 PSI. It is illegal to give any team footballs with over 13.5 PSI. And everyone but Richie understands that 16 PSI > 13.5 PSI. And anyone with an IQ over 50 understands that it is legal to deflate balls that are 16 PSI to a reading of 12.5 PSI.
At 9:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
One commentator on that article asks:
"It's not legal to deflate them after they are tested by the disinterested party. What is the point of testing them by the disinterested party if you can legally tamper with them later?"
But you should offer your expertize, Joe.
At 7:01 AM,
Joe G said…
Just ignore the facts and the science, Richie. It's what you do best.
As an aside- The 12.5-13.5 PSI is the manufacturer's suggested level. No one in the NFL has ever tested to see if any advantage was gained by under or overinflated footballs.
But none of that matters as there still isn't any evidence the footballs for the Colts' game, the only game in question, were tampered with. But then again Richie doesn't care about facts and science...
At 7:03 AM,
Joe G said…
See also: Wells Report called ‘deeply flawed’ and ‘unreliable’- More facts and science for Richie to choke on...
At 4:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
One commentator on that article asks:
"It's not legal to deflate them after they are tested by the disinterested party. What is the point of testing them by the disinterested party if you can legally tamper with them later?"
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
The comment is irrelevant as it doesn't pertain to the game in question. There is only one game that matters and it isn't the one in which someone tampered with the Pat's footballs such that they were overinflated to 16 PSI.
That said it isn't legal to tamper with the footballs after they are tested and that means someone obviously did in order to get the balls to 16 PSI. The process goes like this:
1- The teams are given the game balls to prepare to their quarterback and kicker's liking
2- The prepared PSI is to be between 12.5 and 13.5 - the refs check it
3- The game-time PSI is to be between 12.5 and 13.5
4- If a team gives the referees balls that are 12.5 PSI and they get balls back that are 16 PSI, obviously someone illegally tampered with them
5- It is OK to rectify an obviously illegal move and get the balls back to where they started. Meaning fixing something that was tampered with is not tampering.
But then again Richie is obviously too stupid to understand any of that
At 10:01 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Who's job is it to ask for balls to be further inflated or deflated?
At 9:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Whoever is on the payroll that notices the balls are under or over inflated.
At 1:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No, the referees.
At 1:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Reference please
At 4:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf
"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."
#JOEFAIL.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! You can't even follow what you post.
Who's job is it to ask for balls to be further inflated or deflated?
Then when pressed you moved the goalposts to:
"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."
If someone on the payroll notices the balls are under or over inflated they can definitely ask the referee to check and fix them.
#HUGHESFAIL
And BTW there is only one referee so your reference to "the referees" is another #HUGHESFAIL
At 6:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"they can definitely ask the referee to check and fix"
Oh dear. Do you think the Referees would then inflate or deflate the balls?
At 6:38 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"And BTW there is only one referee so your reference to "the referees" is another #HUGHESFAIL"
Do you think there's only one referee in the NFL tasked with this?
At 6:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Oh dear. There is only one referee, moron. And if the balls are out of the specified range the referee has to rectify the situation. Heck they reinflated the Patriots balls during halftime of the Colts' game.
At 6:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you think there's only one referee in the NFL tasked with this?
There is only one referee per game. And no one is going to take balls from one stadium to another referee at another stadium. So your postering is just desperation.
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Even Richie's reference refutes him:
The Referee shall be the sole judge
At 6:53 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"There is only one referee per game" Is there ever more than one game at a time?
At 6:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Is there ever more than one game at a time?
Not on the same field. And that is all tat matters, loser
At 6:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Me: "Do you think there's only one referee in the NFL tasked with this?"
Chubbers YEC: "Oh dear. There is only one referee, moron"
Reality: http://operations.nfl.com/the-officials/officiating-development/scouting-the-next-nfl-officials/2015-nfl-officials/
At 6:56 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"tat" .. meltdown starting early.
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes your meltdown has started early. Nice own goal, cupcake
At 7:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Dickie chokster:
Reality: http://operations.nfl.com/the-officials/officiating-development/scouting-the-next-nfl-officials/2015-nfl-officials/
One referee per game, dipshit. Grow up, cupcake, your desperation is showing.
At 7:03 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"One referee per game, dipshit. Grow up, cupcake, your desperation is showing."
Oh, so there's more than one referee, then?
At 7:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Your inability to follow along is matched by your ignorance, cupcake.
Dickie loser:
Do you think there's only one referee in the NFL tasked with this?
There is only one referee per game. And no one is going to take balls from one stadium to another referee at another stadium. So your postering is just desperation.
One referee per game, dipshit. Grow up, cupcake, your desperation is showing.
At 7:07 PM,
Joe G said…
So Richie is unable to understand his own reference:
"The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications."
That's comedy gold
At 7:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"One referee per game" So there's more that one referee in totality, then?
At 7:21 PM,
Joe G said…
In context there is only one referee that someone on the payroll can take the balls to before a game. Context is always ignored by cowardly losers so we understand why Richie ignores it.
At 7:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Whoops. In the context of the league, how many referees are there?
At 8:45 PM,
Joe G said…
In the context of what we were discussing your question is irrelevant. Whoops, indeed.
As for your question, look it up. My answer is greater than or equal to 16, unless refs work more than one game in a schedule week.
At 8:51 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So to be clear, more than one person will be a referee this season, so there will in fact be referees?
At 9:01 PM,
Joe G said…
So to be clear, Richie has lost all sense of reasoning and is in full desperation mode.
Wait, that can't be right. Richie never had any sense of reasoning and is always in full desperation mode.
There will be one referee per game to check the footballs.
Again, in CONTEXT:
"they can definitely ask the referee to check and fix"
Oh dear. Do you think the Referees would then inflate or deflate the balls?
No dumbass, there is only one referee per game. And yes, moron, if the referee knows the balls are under or over inflated he is obligated to rectify the situation, as was done in the last Pats vs Colts AFC Championship game.
At 9:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Across multiple games are there multiple referees performing the same functions or is there only one guy? You keep choking on this cupcake. Stop dodging and answer.
Also, before you said "whoever was on the payroll" but have moved to "referee(s)". Funny watch your lard ass tap dancing, cupcake.
At 9:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Across multiple games are there multiple referees performing the same functions or is there only one guy?
Already covered and still irrelevant to the discussion
Also, before you said "whoever was on the payroll" but have moved to "referee(s)"
As I said you can't even follow along. That isn't what happened, cremepuff. Those are two separate parts of the discussion, moron.
needledick:
Who's [sic] job is it to ask for balls to be further inflated or deflated?
Whoever is on the payroll that notices the balls are under or over inflated.
needledick:
Do you think the Referees would then inflate or deflate the balls?
No dumbass, there is only one referee per game. And yes, moron, if the referee knows the balls are under or over inflated he is obligated to rectify the situation, as was done in the last Pats vs Colts AFC Championship game.
Richie's Wednesday meltdown is now complete. Thanks, cremepuff, it has been entertaining. Come back when you understand science and reasoning.
At 10:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Choking Joe still can't admit there's more than one NFL referee. Poor cupcake!
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie the needledick is a lying bitch. What I said about the number of NFL refs:
My answer is greater than or equal to 16, unless refs work more than one game in a schedule week.
But Richie would rather be a lying bitch than to admit no one tampered with the patriot's footballs before their AFC Championship game against the Colts. What a pathetic little imp you are, cremepuff.
At 12:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"NFL refs". Oh so plural. Great. Do you see how that fits with "No, the referees." Now, Cupcake? How I'm addressing the league collectively.
At 12:40 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Context, dumbass. And in context there is only one referee tat checked the Patriot's and Colt's footballs. And and one referee checked the pats' and Jets' footballs.
IOW you are addressing something that is irrelevant. And your own reference refutes you.
At 12:42 PM,
Joe G said…
OK, so Richie cannot address the OP because he is too stupid to understand the science. So what does the ignorant cremepuff do? It quotes an anonymous asshole who also choked on the context.
At 1:11 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"tat" - melting down again! :P
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Wow, that you are forced to pick on typos when you moronically posted: Who's [sic] job is it to ask for balls to be further inflated or deflated?, just proves that you are an unaware and desperate needledick.
Nice own goal, cremepuff.
At 1:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You always type 'tat' when you melt down. Check out your blog!
At 1:29 PM,
Joe G said…
No, Richie, I always type 'tat'. Only desperate morons add on the projection.
Hey who is job is it... Signature worthy
At 1:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Chubs: "No, Richie, I always type 'tat'"
You've correctly, prior to meltdown used "that" correctly at least 20 times in this thread, cupcake.
At 1:48 PM,
Joe G said…
No, Richie, I always type 'tat'. Only desperate morons add on the projection.
And you are the only meltdown queen in this thread Ms. Who's [sic] job is it to ask for balls to be further inflated or deflated?
At 1:13 PM,
Jerad said…
Are you busy trying to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes? Or are you working on the next great ID challenge in the US courts?
At 12:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Have you found any use for saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality? Or are you working on the next great research project that utilizes unguided evolution?
At 2:52 AM,
Jerad said…
Have you found any use for saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality?
Yup. And you clearly cannot figure out something you claimed you could do.
Or are you working on the next great research project that utilizes unguided evolution?
Not my field. And you did say you'd be working on some great legal challenge to evolution. I guess that was just bragging.
At 10:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad the liar strikes again! There isn't any use for saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and I never said anything about challenging evolution. ID is not anti-evolution.
Nice to see that you are still a pathetic little imp.
At 2:00 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad the liar strikes again!
You made a claim you can't back up. That is not a lie. You cannot figure out the relative cardinality of the primes.
There isn't any use for saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality
Your ignorance means you lose.
and I never said anything about challenging evolution. ID is not anti-evolution.
Of course it is! ID says evolutionary theory is wrong.
At 12:33 PM,
Joe G said…
You made a claim you can't back up. That is not a lie. You cannot figure out the relative cardinality of the primes.
Why not? Meet me and bet me on it. Heck even you should be able to do it. Start with the question are there more primes than squares.
There isn't any use for saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.
Your ignorance means you lose.
The ignorance is all yours so you lose. Your lies and bluffs also mean you lose.
and I never said anything about challenging evolution. ID is not anti-evolution.
Of course it is!
Only a willfully ignorant ass would say such a thing. And here you are.
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Revisited- AGAIN!- choke on that.
ID says evolutionary theory is wrong.
What evolutionary theory? ID says that evolutionism, ie Dawkins' blind watchmaker evolution, is wrong. ID says that natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes. But none of what ID opposes amounts to a scientific theory.
At 2:09 PM,
Jerad said…
Why not? Meet me and bet me on it. Heck even you should be able to do it. Start with the question are there more primes than squares.
I don't think it can be done. You say it can. So I'm just pointing out that you haven't been able to uphold your claim. And you can't admit that you can't do it. That's immature and childish.
The ignorance is all yours so you lose. Your lies and bluffs also mean you lose.
Except I know how to do the math you are ignorant of. You ignore material that is presented to you and are too lazy to look stuff up. Go on, show me how to do Fourier analysis without a countably infinite set. Show me how to construct a Taylor series without using a countably infinite (not just infinite but countably infinite) set. You will, predictably, run away from this basic, 100-level, math issue. And that's because you do not know what you are talking about. And you show that ignorance all the time. You have only yourself to blame for looking like a fool and a knave.
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution- Revisited- AGAIN!- choke on that.
But you don't accept evolutionary theory. So you must be opposed to it. As is ID. Stop arguing like a grade schooler.
What evolutionary theory? ID says that evolutionism, ie Dawkins' blind watchmaker evolution, is wrong.
Which is the basis for evolutionary theory. Which you (and ID) oppose, as I said. Which you denied. You can't even get your own position right.
ID says that natural selection is incapable of producing the diversity of life starting from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotes.
Which is in opposition to evolutionary theory. Like I said. You can't even represent your own views correctly.
But none of what ID opposes amounts to a scientific theory.
So says the coward who can't back up his own claims. Who misrepresents his own view. Who claims to have a legal challenge to evolutionary theory but can't get the court case moving. So says a loser. A buffoon. A crackpot.
At 3:22 PM,
Joe G said…
I don't think it can be done.
Why not?
Except I know how to do the math you are ignorant of.
That is your opinion. However you don't even understand the ramifications of set subtraction.
What does cardinality refer to, Jerad?
But you don't accept evolutionary theory.
There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. But thank you for choking on my post as predicted.
Which is the basis for evolutionary theory.
There isn't a scientific theory of evolution.
You can't even represent your own views correctly.
Only your willful ignorance sez so.
So says a loser. A buffoon. A crackpot.
Your projection is duly noted.
BTW relative to the set of natural numbers the set of Primes is closer to it than the set of squares. So relatively speaking the set of Primes is between the set of naturals and squares.
But I doubt that you will understand that. And I am sure you will continue your immature and childish attacks because you are just too stupid to understand what I post.
At 3:41 PM,
Jerad said…
Why not?
Because there is no prime producing formula. The Prime Number Theorem addresses the 'density' of the primes but only aymptotically.
What does cardinality refer to, Jerad?
The cardinality of a set is a measure of the number of elements in that set.
There isn't a scientific theory of evolution. But thank you for choking on my post as predicted.
You are in opposition to the theory of evolution which you dispute. Your claims to the contrary are just trying to trip people up.
BTW relative to the set of natural numbers the set of Primes is closer to it than the set of squares. So relatively speaking the set of Primes is between the set of naturals and squares.
I do 'get' that but I'd like to see you prove it. It may not be true. In other words, the density of the primes might be 'less' than the density of the squares. You need to do some work and not just say stuff you hope is true. You need to make a proper mathematical argument. If you can.
But I doubt that you will understand that. And I am sure you will continue your immature and childish attacks because you are just too stupid to understand what I post.
I am just pointing out that you make claims which you cannot uphold. You are hoist by your own petard.
At 12:35 PM,
Joe G said…
The cardinality of a set is a measure of the number of elements in that set.
Right and if set subtraction shows there is more elements in one set than the other the cardinality of those two sets cannot be the same.
You are in opposition to the theory of evolution which you dispute.
There isn't any such theory to dispute. I am in opposition to evolutionism and not the concept of evolution- just as I said very clearly in the blog post I linked to. Obviously to are too much of an asshole to grasp what I wrote.
I do 'get' that but I'd like to see you prove it.
Then you have to pay me
In other words, the density of the primes might be 'less' than the density of the squares.
Not in this universe.
You need to make a proper mathematical argument.
You need to mount a proper mathematical refutation. If you can.
I am just pointing out that you make claims which you cannot uphold.
I am just pointing out that is your ignorant opinion.
At 4:36 PM,
Jerad said…
Right and if set subtraction shows there is more elements in one set than the other the cardinality of those two sets cannot be the same.
Your set subtraction contradicts a proof given by Cantor. So, unless you can find a mistake in his proof, then your set subtraction is incorrect. Can you find a mistake?
There isn't any such theory to dispute. I am in opposition to evolutionism and not the concept of evolution- just as I said very clearly in the blog post I linked to. Obviously to are too much of an asshole to grasp what I wrote.
You claim that that random mutations and natural selection are incapable of producing the variety of life evident in life and the fossil record. So you are opposed to evolutionary theory.
Then you have to pay me
Again, you cannot back up your claims. You don't need to keep proving that, you've done it many times already.
In other words, the density of the primes might be 'less' than the density of the squares.
Not in this universe.
You have not established that. You don't understand how to clearly.
You need to mount a proper mathematical refutation. If you can.
You've offered nothing to refute. Except an unsubstantiated claim. If you haven't even bothered trying to support it then I don't have to refute it. It's like saying you can dead lift 1000 pounds without showing you can and then expecting me to prove you can't.
I am just pointing out that is your ignorant opinion.
It's very clear that you claim that you can figure out the relative cardinality of the primes but have never been able to do so. And now you're claiming some vague thing about the relative cardinality of the square numbers in relation to the relative cardinality of the primes again with no mathematical justification for your statement. You haven't established anything so there's nothing to refute.
You can't get other people to do all the hard work for you. Even Donald Trump is realising that doesn't work forever. But it is the way lazy cowards tend to work.
Come up with the goods or shut up.
At 4:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Your set subtraction contradicts a proof given by Cantor.
I know. Cantor's "proof" just shows that sets are countable and also shows the relative cardinality via the mapping function.
You claim that that random mutations and natural selection are incapable of producing the variety of life evident in life and the fossil record.
Natural selection includes random mutations and no one can say how to test the claim you just posted.
So you are opposed to evolutionary theory.
I cannot oppose what doesn't exist.
Again, you cannot back up your claims.
Again, you are an ignorant troll. I have backed up my claims.
You have not established that.
If you think that I am wrong than show me or shut up.
You've offered nothing to refute.
Of course I have. I have said where the set of primes is in relation to the set of naturals and squares.
It's very clear that you claim that you can figure out the relative cardinality of the primes
And yet I have and then you moved the goalposts as all loser cowards do. You are obviously just a little cry-baby loser.
At 4:54 PM,
Jerad said…
I know. Cantor's "proof" just shows that sets are countable and also shows the relative cardinality via the mapping function.
After all this time you still don't get it.
Natural selection includes random mutations and no one can say how to test the claim you just posted.
The point is you are opposed to evolutionary theory. Like I said.
I cannot oppose what doesn't exist.
You sure spend a lot of time doing that.
Again, you are an ignorant troll. I have backed up my claims.
What is the relative cardinality of the primes? Can you prove your assertion about the relative cardinality of the squares in comparison to the primes?
If you think that I am wrong than show me or shut up.
You haven't provided a statement definite enough to contradict. You haven't provide any mathematical argument or proof.
Of course I have. I have said where the set of primes is in relation to the set of naturals and squares.
But you've offered no proof or justification. No one is going to spend time chasing down spurious claims unless they're backed up because they're no reason to suppose they're true.
And yet I have and then you moved the goalposts as all loser cowards do. You are obviously just a little cry-baby loser.
You haven't. You know it. You're just trying to put the burden of all the work on me. It's not going to work. You made a claim and you can't back it up. You cannot say precisely what the relative cardinality of the primes is nor can you show/prove that it's greater or less than the relative cardinality of the squares.
You have to do more than just assert. You have to make a mathematical argument. Which you haven't done.
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
After all this time you still don't get it.
Nice projection
The point is you are opposed to evolutionary theory.
I cannot be opposed to something that doesn't exist. Try to pay attention.
You sure spend a lot of time doing that.
That is your uneducated opinion, anyway.
What is the relative cardinality of the primes?
Relative to the set of naturals it has fewer elements. Set subtraction is my proof.
So again, fuck off and stop moving the goalposts like a little baby.
Post a Comment
<< Home