• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Kaepernick's Grievance

 
 
 
Dolphins sign David Fales, not Colin Kaepernick, for QB help after Cutler injury
Click to expand...

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...n-kaepernick-for-qb-help-after-cutler-injury/

500px-Simpsons-nelson-ha-ha-93-p-672x480.jpg
 
dismal said:
Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

One of these must be true, only one of them can be true.

Any given factoid can support one more than the other, can support neither, or could support both.

The factoid "Trump says NFL owners don't want to sign Kaepernick because they don't want to get a nasty tweet from him." is not in anyway evidence supporting #2. It provides us no additional information about collusion.

It gives us a(nother) reason why any given NFL owner might not want to sign Kaepernick. It's additional evidence for #1.
Click to expand...

No--that's case #3. It's neither independent nor collusion. While I don't think it's likely we can't rule it out at present.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
dismal said:
I blame collusion.
Click to expand...

It isn't plausible since there is no collective benefit among the owners for not hiring you, only the individual benefit of each team not to hire a dismal QB.
Click to expand...

Allegedly, since I am unwillingly to officially acknowledge this while I am exploring my legal remedies, hiring me might hurt their TV revenues, which they all share.
 
dismal said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
It isn't plausible since there is no collective benefit among the owners for not hiring you, only the individual benefit of each team not to hire a dismal QB.
Click to expand...

Allegedly, since I am unwillingly to officially acknowledge this while I am exploring my legal remedies, hiring me might hurt their TV revenues, which they all share.
Click to expand...

That seems disingenuous.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
dismal said:
Allegedly, since I am unwillingly to officially acknowledge this while I am exploring my legal remedies, hiring me might hurt their TV revenues, which they all share.
Click to expand...

That seems disingenuous.
Click to expand...

It's a true fact. There must be some reason why they won't hire me in spite of the fact I am willing to work for a fraction of what they pay Tom Brady. It's got to be because they're worried about their revenues.
 
dismal said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
That seems disingenuous.
Click to expand...

It's a true fact. There must be some reason why they won't hire me in spite of the fact I am willing to work for a fraction of what they pay Tom Brady. It's got to be because they're worried about their revenues.
Click to expand...

They won't hire you because no one will buy your jersey.
 
hurtinbuckaroo said:
dismal said:
It's a true fact. There must be some reason why they won't hire me in spite of the fact I am willing to work for a fraction of what they pay Tom Brady. It's got to be because they're worried about their revenues.
Click to expand...

They won't hire you because no one will buy your jersey.
Click to expand...

I think a couple of comedians like Rodney Dangerfield and Steven Wright might buy a jersey that says "dismal" on it.
 
When he says believe in something enough to sacrifice everything, he means believe in getting paid enough to sacrifice your professed values.

Or that he was gonna lose at arbitration.
 
dismal said:
blastula said:
Colin Kaepernick, Eric Reid reach settlement in collusion case vs. NFL | SI.com

Confidential agreements are the worst.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what could ever cause a heroic fighter for truth and justice to agree to one.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what could cause a trillion dollar association to agree to a confidential settlement when they have endless lawyers fighting against accusations that are almost inherently unproveable in court. Especially an organization who recently refused to settle and was willing to spend years and many millions taking a case about inflated footballs to trial and appeal. Confidentiality in such cases is always demanded by the defendant who agree to payout in exchange for preventing the public from leaning things that make the defendant look guilty, even if those facts are not enough to reach the near impossible burden of proof for a conspiracy. IOW, even if the NFL thought they would win the trial due to the high burden of proof, they knew that there is enough damning evidence against them to make them look even worse and more guilty than they already do now by paying 80 million in hush money to keep the public ignorant of those facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom