Kaepernick's Grievance

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetically someone trying to prove collusion can break collusion down into one person saying X and then another agreeing to X (or not disagreeing through silence), and person1 and person2 then doing the thing that was either expressly or tacitly agreed to.

Let e1 = one person saying X
Let e2 = another person agreeing explicitly
Let e3 = that other person instead not disagreeing
Let e4 = that one person and the other doing what was stated in X

So e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
Likewise, e1 AND e3 AND e4 ==> collusion

Facts showing e1 or that e1 would likely be true are evidence.

Therefore, "One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication]" is evidence.

Does e1 in and of itself prove collusion? No, and no one said that it had to by itself and that isn't how evidence works.

To repeat evidence does not work like this:
e1 ==> collusion
e2 ==> collusion
e3 ==> collusion
e4 ==> collusion

dismal: "Hey, e1 isn't evidence because it doesn't imply collusion!"

Instead:
e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
OR (e1 AND e3 AND e4) ==> collusion

 

[dismal]

Hypothetically someone trying to prove collusion can break collusion down into one person saying X and then another agreeing to X (or not disagreeing through silence), and person1 and person2 then doing the thing that was either expressly or tacitly agreed to.

Let e1 = one person saying X
Let e2 = another person agreeing explicitly
Let e3 = that other person instead not disagreeing
Let e4 = that one person and the other doing what was stated in X

So e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
Likewise, e1 AND e3 AND e4 ==> collusion

Facts showing e1 or that e1 would likely be true are evidence.

Therefore, "One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication]" is evidence.

Let's try reality. Your mission is to prove "Jets colluded with Patriots".

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

Hypothetically someone trying to prove collusion can break collusion down into one person saying X and then another agreeing to X (or not disagreeing through silence), and person1 and person2 then doing the thing that was either expressly or tacitly agreed to.

Let e1 = one person saying X
Let e2 = another person agreeing explicitly
Let e3 = that other person instead not disagreeing
Let e4 = that one person and the other doing what was stated in X

So e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
Likewise, e1 AND e3 AND e4 ==> collusion

Facts showing e1 or that e1 would likely be true are evidence.

Therefore, "One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication]" is evidence.

Let's try reality. Your mission is to prove "Jets colluded with Patriots".

No, that is not my mission. You claimed that the Kaepernick team presented no additional evidence than "Waaah, I did not get hired!" Whereas I said there is additional evidence there. You continually refuse to accept any facts as any evidence.

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

I already refuted your point in the remaining part of my post you did not respond to.

 

[dismal]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's try reality. Your mission is to prove "Jets colluded with Patriots".

No, that is not my mission. You claimed that the Kaepernick team presented no additional evidence than "Waaah, I did not get hired!" Whereas I said there is additional evidence there. You continually refuse to accept any facts as any evidence.

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

I already refuted your point in the remaining part of my post you did not respond to.

You want to bet $1000 this gets tossed for lack of evidence of collusion?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

[*]Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick

Links, please.

Note: links to statements that coaches/GMs were "considering", "interested in", "exploring the possibility of", etc. are not evidence that anyone wanted to sign him.

 

[Kharakov]

The US Military uses mind control technology on NFL owners.... news at 11.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The US Military uses mind control technology on NFL owners.... news at 11.

Transmitted through the NA...some of the receivers appear to be broken, however. Must be fixed!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

[*]Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick

Links, please.

Note: links to statements that coaches/GMs were "considering", "interested in", "exploring the possibility of", etc. are not evidence that anyone wanted to sign him.

I was re-quoting the grievance where original quote is from the op. The link to the grievance is in the op.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that is not my mission. You claimed that the Kaepernick team presented no additional evidence than "Waaah, I did not get hired!" Whereas I said there is additional evidence there. You continually refuse to accept any facts as any evidence.

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

I already refuted your point in the remaining part of my post you did not respond to.

You want to bet $1000 this gets tossed for lack of evidence of collusion?

From my op:

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

It is quite clear that I do not have an opinion of certainty that Kaepernick's legal team will win. Instead, I think they have some points, to include the nuanced point that they have some evidence of pieces of the narrative they need to prove. My argument with you is a nuanced argument about whether or not we can consider such statements as evidence. They are evidence but in total all evidence may not be enough to show that P(collusion) > 50% which would be a basic requirement of preponderance of evidence burden of proof.

Your refusal to admit when things are evidence aside, we still have to see what other facts they present as well as what facts are presented by the NFL and owners.

 

[dismal]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that is not my mission. You claimed that the Kaepernick team presented no additional evidence than "Waaah, I did not get hired!" Whereas I said there is additional evidence there. You continually refuse to accept any facts as any evidence.

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

I already refuted your point in the remaining part of my post you did not respond to.

You want to bet $1000 this gets tossed for lack of evidence of collusion?

From my op:

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

It is quite clear that I do not have an opinion of certainty that Kaepernick's legal team will win. Instead, I think they have some points, to include the nuanced point that they have some evidence of pieces of the narrative they need to prove. My argument with you is a nuanced argument about whether or not we can consider such statements as evidence. They are evidence but in total all evidence may not be enough to show that P(collusion) > 50% which would be a basic requirement of preponderance of evidence burden of proof.

Your refusal to admit when things are evidence aside, we still have to see what other facts they present as well as what facts are presented by the NFL and owners.

Can you at least acknowledge that grasping at Trump as evidence of collusion is pretty pathetic? Given Kaepernick was already actively not being employed by every NFL team for months before Trump said anything?

In general most people are capable of recognizing that things occurring months after an event did not cause the event.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

- - - Updated - - -



No, that is not my mission. You claimed that the Kaepernick team presented no additional evidence than "Waaah, I did not get hired!" Whereas I said there is additional evidence there. You continually refuse to accept any facts as any evidence.

When you offer factoid "Trump said people who kneel suck" it is not evidence "Jets colluded with Patriots". It is also not evidence of "This is a cold winter" or "Don has an inflamed scrotum".

You keep offering up factoids you claim are evidence of collusion. My point is they are no more "evidence of collusion" than they are "evidence you have an inflamed scrotum". Neither is inferrable from the factoid.

I already refuted your point in the remaining part of my post you did not respond to.

You want to bet $1000 this gets tossed for lack of evidence of collusion?

From my op:

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

It is quite clear that I do not have an opinion of certainty that Kaepernick's legal team will win. Instead, I think they have some points, to include the nuanced point that they have some evidence of pieces of the narrative they need to prove. My argument with you is a nuanced argument about whether or not we can consider such statements as evidence. They are evidence but in total all evidence may not be enough to show that P(collusion) > 50% which would be a basic requirement of preponderance of evidence burden of proof.

Your refusal to admit when things are evidence aside, we still have to see what other facts they present as well as what facts are presented by the NFL and owners.

Can you at least acknowledge that grasping at Trump as evidence of collusion is pretty pathetic? Given Kaepernick was already actively not being employed by every NFL team for months before Trump said anything?

In general most people are capable of recognizing that things occurring months after an event did not cause the event.

This article is from Mar 21st:

Donald Trump brags his Twitter account is stopping NFL teams from signing Colin Kaepernick

At a rally on Monday, President Donald Trump made comments about free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick at his rally, suggesting why he hasn’t been picked up by a team yet.

Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman wrote about Kaepernick last week, discussing why Kaepernick hadn’t been signed yet. In the piece, an unnamed AFC general manager was quoted as saying, “Some teams fear the backlash from fans after getting him. They think there might be protests or [President Donald] Trump will tweet about the team. I'd say that number is around 10 percent. Then there's another 10 percent that has a mix of those feelings.”

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/20/14991502/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-nasty-tweet

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Links, please.

Note: links to statements that coaches/GMs were "considering", "interested in", "exploring the possibility of", etc. are not evidence that anyone wanted to sign him.

I was re-quoting the grievance where original quote is from the op. The link to the grievance is in the op.

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was re-quoting the grievance where original quote is from the op. The link to the grievance is in the op.

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

 

[dismal]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

Well then, it's a good thing Kaepernick doesn't have to prove cooperation among the owners.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

Well then, it's a good thing Kaepernick doesn't have to prove cooperation among the owners.

From the op:

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

A claim by Kapernick that someone wanted to sign him is so obviously self-serving that any competent arbitrator wouldn't bother to consider it. Before it even reaches the level of "suggestive" (as everything seems to be, in some people's minds), he has to prove someone actually said it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

A claim by Kapernick that someone wanted to sign him is so obviously self-serving that any competent arbitrator wouldn't bother to consider it. Before it even reaches the level of "suggestive" (as everything seems to be, in some people's minds), he has to prove someone actually said it.

He may have to produce some kind of documentation or other additional evidence as part of the process, such as confirmatory testimony from said managers and coaches, appointment schedules, emails/text msgs, and/or phone records.

 

[dismal]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

A claim by Kapernick that someone wanted to sign him is so obviously self-serving that any competent arbitrator wouldn't bother to consider it. Before it even reaches the level of "suggestive" (as everything seems to be, in some people's minds), he has to prove someone actually said it.

He may have to produce some kind of documentation or other additional evidence as part of the process, such as confirmatory testimony from said managers and coaches, appointment schedules, emails/text msgs, and/or phone records.

None of which would be evidence of collusion.

For some thing to be evidence of collusion, it would need to evidence indicating more than one team was colluding.