Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
From the above sentence, I conclude that your skills of deduction need some fine tuning. The fact that I do not conclude something does NOT entail that I conclude the opposite.
|
OK, so educate me.
Where did I say you conclude the opposite?
All I did was point out based on what you wrote that you reject both of the possible conclusions I offered. I merely eliminated those 2 from the potentially limitless list of what you could have possibly been thinking.
How does my eliminating those mere 2 out of the many possibilities entail that you actually conclude only the opposite of those 2 guesses?
Quote:
(1) I think this possible. But it's also possible that the story is completely fabricated by a disgruntled employee. I have no idea which is true.
(2) If the statement was made, I doubt that it was meant to be taken seriously.
That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to give me a hard time about it.
|
Because you're using an completely independant and irrelevant fact (pre-game security is high) to defend Isaiah's stupid behavior. I believe he did tell that cheerleader to go flirt with the referees. I don't think he cared one bit about how possible or impossible that might have been to accomplish. I believe he actually thought he could have gotten at least some tiny benefit out of it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that at best he was half-serious. To me, he came just short of jokingly telling the cheerleader to promise to f@ck the officials after the game because it might help him win. And you're defending that. Oh well...
Of course, given what you and I both know about the case my opinion is as good as yours...or maybe there's some other little known skill of deduction you can help me understand...