Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:Originally posted by ritchie:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
If it is a quote from an anonymous, involuntary ex-employee relayed to a third party whose job it is to sell advertising space, it must be 100% true and 100% accurately re-stated.
Fire everyone!
You do realize that one of the primary methods of poor logic is attacking the source, not the information itself? Who in their right mind would risk marring their image to express something this negative to the media? Have you ever studied psychology? Anonymity provides the most accurate information possible. Ever heard of an eye witness? Have you ever heard of bulletin board material? Alex Smith who clearly was frustrated with Jimmy Raye wouldn't say anything negative about the OC in his departure. It's an unfair burden to place on your team, your team's chemistry, and your own reputation. Remember the anonymous locker room sources about Nolan? Well all the evidence to follow would support those statements.
I have never seen an NFL team more unprepared in my entire life than the 49ers against Seattle and Kansas City. Heck, even the saints game was a joke the entire first quarter. Against the Saints the home crowd had more to do with the game being close than the coaching staff.
I don't see how you can support Sing when all factual evidence points to the contrary. He doesn't coach the offense, he doesn't coach the defense, and he sure as hell doesn't manage games. He wears a f'ing watch on him to act busy during games. Has somebody told him that this isn't a practice in today's NFL?
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Further, a party's credibility is always at issue, so attacking the source is proper.
You do realize that accepting blatant hearsay as gospel truth not only throws the rules of evidence out the window, but also shows a complete lack of critical thinking, right?
And yes, I studied psychology in undergrad before I received my law degree.
Game, set, match.
Blouses win.
Psychology was one of my majors in undergrad and as of last year I too have a law degree, so...........
It doesn't change the fact that you completely failed to address the statement made, which there is more evidence to support than deny.
You are creating a straw man argument by looking at that statement and implying that the only conclusion is to fire everyone given that statement (an extreme), which given that firing everyone is not the logical conclusion of the premise, is a faulty way of disproving the statement itself. Singletary should be fired whether that statement is true or not, he has done nothing to prove worthy of being an nfl coach.
Congrats on your degree!
Actually, I was not arguing, but simply making light of the statements because they are, at best, a mere scintilla of evidence supporting the conclusion reached. But.... accepting anonymous statements like this as truth is par for the course here in the overreacting mess that is NT.
Statements:
1. It was the most unorganized team he has ever been around -- including high school.
2. Singletary and his staff would often wing it when it came to game plans on Sundays.
Among other things, how does one prove the truth of statement #1? Also, how do we know how organized the anonymous source's prior teams were so as to make a comparison?
As to the second statement, how would this person know what Sing and his staff did or did not do to prepare when this person was not around?
Bottom line: Singletary may need to be fired, but those alleged statements (which may not have been made at all, may have been translated incorrectly, or may have been taken out of context) are not reliable evidence supporting that conclusion. THAT was my point.
