"Tom Brady prefer his balls to feel a certain way" - balls underinflated

[Ban Bot]

..and nothing but correct as well. Joe Montana will always have something Tom Brady will never have - a perfect 4-0 record in the Super Bowl. :biggrin:

I agree Joe is a better "all timer" (at least how I look at it) but counting rings alone isn't sufficient.

Tom made it 6 times, won 4.

Joe made it 4 times, winning 4.

The proper subtext would be: Tom's teams were better (relative to the league) to get to the Super Bowl 2x more times than Joe's teams -- Joe couldn't even lose the Super Bowl those 2x times because he was at home watching it on the TV like the rest of us.

There is a mystique about, "Never losing the big one" but that downplays the AFC/NFC Championship games. So, what, Joe ratchets it up for the Super Bowl but not as high for the Conference Championship games?

This isn't putting down Joe. I think Brady gets a tip of the hat for a league of parity but I don't think that made it easier for Joe. Joe had more bottom cellar dwellers to feast on (the 80s Saints were horrible; the Rams were average lest a couple seasons; Atlanta was mostly terrible, too -- oh yes, some of us Hawk fans pre-date 2012...) but you look at the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, Chicago in the 80s and early 90s

The NFC went 15-1 in Super Bowls from 1982 to 1997. The 49ers won 4 between 1982 and 1990 under Joe.

So Joe played against some wicked good teams in the NFC during a time the NFC was 15-1 in the big game. And Joe in a 9 year window won 4 Super Bowls in a time when Chicago, Washington, and New York were simply dominant.

So while Brady has navigated an era of parody Joe, who was definitely on a better team relative to the league, had to fight 2 Super Bowel caliber teams year in and year out in the NFC playoffs.

Tom has had over a decade of playing the dysfunctional Jets, Bills, and Dolphins (who have all lacked a top tier QB for 15 years!) getting easy access to the playoffs and often 1st round byes. And due to parity many of the teams New England faced in the AFC playoffs were simply nowhere nearly as good as the competition Joe had in the 80s in the NFC.

Brady has never won a Super Bowl by more than 4 points -- Joe had 2 blow outs and the closest game was 4 points. Joe played better in his games overall. And no one can take away SB 49 from Brady it was a game of attrition (the Seattle DBs were totally banged up; Sherman had a torn elbow, Kam sprained an MCL days before the game in practice, Thomas was playing on a shoulder that required surgery due to a dislocation weeks prior, Simon also was playing on a shoulder that require surgery due to dislocation; their top slot corner [Lane] tore his ACL and had a compound forearm fracture on a play he intercepted Brady; all this in conjunction with a ton of DL injuries and losing their second best pass rusher [Avril] to a concussion mid game--at which point Brady's stats went from bad to good). Some look at Brady besting the LOB / Seattle team that spanked Denver the year before as a huge win. The reality is Seattle had taken a 10pt lead and their defense collapsed due to injury (part of the game-_NE had their fair share of injuries, too) and even then Seattle was 1 yard from winning and lost on an amazing play by a rookie yet given that you run the play 100 times again NE probably doesn't get a turnover as everything went wrong for Seattle on that play (Crappy route by Lockette, Kearse screwed up his rub route, Lockette not going strong to the ball, hence why he was a 6th receiver at the beginning of the season and only playing due to injuries and Harvin being traded).

As unfair as it is to Brady he won't be remembered for winning SB49 but for Seattle's defense collapsing and after an miracle drive lost at the 1 yard line in the most gut wrenching ending to a SB ever.

Also not to his credit is how a touch catch by Welker in one game or the Tyre miracle grab in another (what a joke of a pass by Eli) and Brady is 6-0.

Football is a team sport. Few players are a 5+ point margin of victory difference. Brady's teammates failed him in 2 games -- could Joe have pulled off those games? We won't know. But on the flip side Brady's effort in the other SBs was "par" for the game, he wasn't such a decisive talent on the field totally tilting it, either.

Montana going 22-of-29 for 297 yards and 5 TDs against Denver is a player tilting the table. Sure, again, team game. Montana had Rice, Taylor, Jones, and Craig to pass to + top tier defense. But Joe always did his part and was a big part of the last 3 SBs. His career SB line is 68.0% completion (in an era of < 60% being the norm), 11 TDs, 0 INTs, and a Passer Rating of 127.8 (again in an era where season averages were almost always under 100.0 for even the best QBs; e.g. Marino had only 1x season above 100.0).

I would take the subjective, "Plug each player into the SB team" approach, so totally my opinion. While I can respect the fact Brady (and other QBs of this ilk) who can "control" the ball don't get enough respect (volume passers get too much praise), and Brady has turned in some fantastic seasons with subpar receivers and a season to remember with Moss & Co. I would take Montana every single time.

IMO one of the biggest travesties of NFL history with elite QBs is not doing what BB has done with NE: build good defenses. Your elite QB should be able to "elevate" your offense, so let him do his job as an elite QB. And then let him earn his chops with careful ball control and let the defense keep games close.

While I cannot blame Manning for how the Colts were ran I thought it was a short sighted mistake, showing a QB flaw, in Manning by seeking out an offensive powerhouse instead of a killer defense. Manning could have elevated most offenses to respectable levels but it really hard to overcome a defense that breaks.

And maybe this is where Brady does deserve a lot of respect: he is all about W's and not stats. He has seemed pretty content on a team designed not to center all around him on the field. Which is why I think he has 4 rings and Manning 1.

Montana > Brady. All just my opinion. In general I think there have been a lot of talented players on teams simply not good enough. This is true of many position players. Players like Emmitt Smith have 3 rings and Terrell Davis has 2 and OJ, Barry Sanders, Adrian Peterson, Shawn Alexander, LT, Thurman Thomas, etc. have 0 and Walter Payton only 1.

A player like Archie Manning was great during his era but didn't accomplish squat because he was on horrible teams. And then there are players who can elevate teams to a level but their style of play is a hindrance to going further. Football is unique where you can still scheme to stop great players or avoid them to take them out of the game. It is a team sport unlike no other.

 

[smackababy]

RG3 is better than Montana, Brady, Grossman, and Cutler.


Combined.

We already know he is better than Luck. >_>

 

[SP33Demon]

Phone or no phone, I think the carrier will retain records for law enforcement for a given period of time Brady clearly destroyed the phone to keep it out of the investigation and the NFL has no subpoena power to go after the records in an internal matter like this. But if Brady sues, won't the records become fair game in a court case? Any lawyers here know?

They wouldn't be able to see the individual texts, just who and when he sent them to.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

the only ones performing mental gymnastics are people such as yourself, looking forward to deus ex machina to stop the patriots from whipping your teams' asses again and again. your argument is nothing but cheerleading, devoid of fact or logic.

I'm not the one doing mental gymnastics here -- tell me, who was suspended and had that suspension upheld? Tell me, WHY was Brady suspended?

Every time there is a cheating accusation against the Patriots, you and your ilk run to ATOT to defend them. Every time, we see the same tired arguments: "But...but... XYZ did it too!" Never do we see "God damn it, I'm so disappointed in my team. They deserve the grief." I take that back - Butch did say something similar, but he is the only one that said it as far as I can recall. It is always "BUT SOMEONE ELSE DID IT TOO!" instead of the PROPER response, which is: "XYZ did it too and should've been punished, but it doesn't excuse the Patriots' behavior and they need to be punished."

If Luck or the Colts did this, I'd want them punished too. I won't defend cheating.

 

[smackababy]

I'm not the one doing mental gymnastics here -- tell me, who was suspended and had that suspension upheld? Tell me, WHY was Brady suspended?

The question is why was Brady suspended? What rule did he break? The issue with Goodell being the arbiter is, from what I've seen, there was no evidence directly implying Brady was involved. Now, if we say "well, he ordered his phone destroyed and it might have had evidence linking him to Inflategate!", is that enough to suspend him on?

If Goodell was punishing him for not cooperating with the investigation, is 4 games a valid punishment for just that?

Personally, I don't give a shit about Brady. The more he is in the news, the less stupid shit I have to read about Romo being bad, so I guess I hope this continues.


And with that, Montana is the greatest QB to play the game. Not only was he a Superbowl winner among some of the best teams at the 49ers, he took the Chiefs to the AFC championship and was beating by a good Bills team (who couldn't beat the NFC East >_>).

If Luck or the Colts did this, I'd want them punished too. I won't defend cheating.

How do you feel about players taking drugs known for masking PEDs? Sure, there was a suspension, but there was no real coverage I saw even mentioning the use of the drugs.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The question is why was Brady suspended? What rule did he break? The issue with Goodell being the arbiter is, from what I've seen, there was no evidence directly implying Brady was involved. Now, if we say "well, he ordered his phone destroyed and it might have had evidence linking him to Inflategate!", is that enough to suspend him on?

If Goodell was punishing him for not cooperating with the investigation, is 4 games a valid punishment for just that?

Personally, I don't give a shit about Brady. The more he is in the news, the less stupid shit I have to read about Romo being bad, so I guess I hope this continues.

I've said it before -- I really don't give a shit about Deflategate one way or the other. It made no difference to the outcome of the game whatsoever. I just enjoy the whining we hear from Patriots fans and seeing them do all sorts of strange contortions to justify their team's behavior (the aforementioned "But...but...but...other teams do it too!!!!!" being the primary offender).

And with that, Montana is the greatest QB to play the game. Not only was he a Superbowl winner among some of the best teams at the 49ers, he took the Chiefs to the AFC championship and was beating by a good Bills team (who couldn't beat the NFC East >_>).

Not to mention that in his day, passing was MUCH harder than it is today. I guarantee if Montana would've led an 18-0 team into the SB against a team of scrubs, he would NOT have lost.

How do you feel about players taking drugs known for masking PEDs? Sure, there was a suspension, but there was no real coverage I saw even mentioning the use of the drugs.

If it is illegal and defined as against the rules, they should be suspended. It is hard for me to feel sorry for a bunch of millionaires who make a living by kicking, throwing, and running with a ball when they can't even follow rules everyone knows about.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

question:

The question is why was Brady suspended? What rule did he break?

answer:

I really don't give a shit about Deflategate one way or the other.

...
Not to mention that in his day, passing was MUCH harder than it is today. I guarantee if Montana would've led an 18-0 team into the SB against a team of scrubs, he would NOT have lost.

your non-answer to a very concise question sums it all up.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

your non-answer to a very concise question sums it all up.

*MY* non-answer? Uh, I was the one who originally asked the "very concise" question of *YOU.* Please read the post above smackababy's post. I'm waiting for your response. Here it is for you to read:

I'm not the one doing mental gymnastics here -- tell me, who was suspended and had that suspension upheld? Tell me, WHY was Brady suspended?

 

[SSSnail]

I've said it before -- I really don't give a shit about Deflategate one way or the other. It made no difference to the outcome of the game whatsoever. I just enjoy the whining we hear from Patriots fans and seeing them do all sorts of strange contortions to justify their team's behavior (the aforementioned "But...but...but...other teams do it too!!!!!" being the primary offender).

Not to mention that in his day, passing was MUCH harder than it is today. I guarantee if Montana would've led an 18-0 team into the SB against a team of scrubs, he would NOT have lost.

So when are you going to come out and admit that you guys sucked for Luck?

Anyways, throwing was easy if you have Jerry "stickum" Rice.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So when are you going to come out and admit that you guys sucked for Luck?

If you can supply internal memos from the Colts or signed affidavits from Caldwell and Polian saying they did it, I'll believe it. Until then, it is ridiculous speculation.

I watched every game that year. The team was atrocious. But I'll bow to your logic - it makes incredible sense that Caldwell and Polian would mastermind all those losses to give Irsay a new toy while at the same time, getting fired in the process. I'm sure getting fired was all part of their plan, right? Do you think they hatched a scheme with Irsay to infiltrate other NFL teams to report back their findings to Irsay? Guess that didn't work out too well for Polian, did it?

Anyways, throwing was easy if you have Jerry "stickum" Rice.

Throwing is even easier when DBs are flagged if they look at a receiver cross-eyed.

 

[TheSlamma]

Brady is such a Phoney

Where did he learn the smash trick from? his brother Aaron Hernandez?

 

[SP33Demon]

All you Brady lovers need to accept reality, he cheated and he's fucked.

Q: Will Brady succeed in court and stop the NFL from suspending him for four games?

A: No, Brady will not succeed. Although he enjoys top-of-the-line legal representation and his lawyers will file a brilliantly written lawsuit, his effort to stop the suspension is doomed. There are two reasons why: First, federal judges are reluctant to reconsider the rulings of arbitrators; second, Goodell produced a decision on Brady that is brilliantly reasoned, meticulously detailed, and well-written. Goodell's recitation of the evidence of the tampering with game balls is powerful, and his description of Brady's attempt at a cover up is persuasive.

Q: Why are federal judges reluctant to reconsider an arbitrator's decision?

A: If federal judges were to offer reviews of arbitrator decisions made throughout the nation, their dockets soon would be filled with arbitration cases. Throughout American business and industry, there are agreements to submit disputes to arbitration. It is viewed as a less-costly and more-efficient way to resolve issues. It avoids the expense and the endless delays of litigation. An essential element of any arbitration is that it is final and cannot be reviewed.

Federal judges understand the theory behind arbitration, and they are already inundated with criminal cases and thousands of civil lawsuits. They know that an arbitrator has considered the evidence, and the judges do not want a second look at the evidence. Even when the arbitrator is totally wrong, most federal judges will not reconsider the ruling. In a notorious case involving former Los Angeles Dodgers baseball player Steve Garvey at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, the high court ruled that even when the arbitrator's decision is "improvident or even silly," it does "not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce" the arbitrator's decision.

Q: But didn't a federal judge recently reverse an NFL arbitration ruling for Adrian Peterson?

A: Yes. U.S. District Court Judge David Doty in Minneapolis, who has presided over NFL litigation for 25 years, reversed the punishment imposed on Peterson. He based his ruling on what he thought was an egregious error by the NFL arbitrator -- the application of a new and harsher penalty to an incident that occurred before the adoption of the new penalty. The case is on appeal, and the NFL is likely to prevail in the appeal with the high court reminding Doty that federal judges should stay away from reviews of arbitrators' rulings.
...
Q: What evidence led Goodell to confirm the four-game suspension?

A: Goodell relied on evidence the Wells investigation, the 300 exhibits offered in the day-long hearing, and 450 pages of testimony. He also relied heavily on information that he did not learn during the hearing. Kessler and the NFLPA said there was no need for testimony from John Jastremski and James McNally, the Patriots employees who were involved in the machinations that led to the deflated game balls. The NFL attorneys argued, according to the Goodell opinion, that Goodell was entitled to make an "adverse inference" from Brady's failure to present key witnesses. Goodell went beyond the adverse inference and made a finding that both men lacked credibility in the statements they made to Wells. The Brady legal team also admitted that McNally had "more than enough time" during his famous 100-second visit into a locked bathroom to do what was necessary to deflate the balls.

Q: Was there other evidence that was important to Goodell?

A: Yes. Brady's refusal to cooperate with the Wells investigators and his destruction of his cell phone on the same day that he was to be interviewed by Wells were extremely important in Goodell's decision. Goodell said that the destruction of the cell phone was "very troubling." He added that it was clear that Brady made an "affirmative effort to conceal relevant evidence and to undermine the investigation." And Goodell took his reasoning one step further when he wrote that Brady's destruction of the phone "gives rise to an inference that information from his cellphone, if it were available, would further demonstrate [Brady's] direct knowledge of and involvement with the scheme to tamper with the game balls, just as he concealed for months the fact that he had destroyed the cellphone requested by the investigators."

Q: What was Brady's biggest mistake?

A: There was more than one. There is little doubt that Brady blundered when he refused to cooperate with the Wells investigators by turning over his phone and his text messages. He made it even worse when he destroyed the phone. It might go down in history as the most notorious cover up in New England since Chappaquiddick. And then, incredibly, after he had destroyed the phone, he and his lawyers suggested to Goodell that Brady routinely destroyed his old phones when he purchase a new one. The problem was that that the Wells investigators had already found an old phone that Brady had not destroyed. But the worst mistake was a series of phone calls and text messages on the day after the Indianapolis game with Jastremski and a visit with him in the "QB Room." Goodell, in a brilliant passage in his masterly opinion, explained that the frantic calls in the three days after the game showed that Brady "was undermining efforts by game officials to ensure compliance with league rules."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-short-court-challenge-roger-goodell-decision

hahahahahaha

 

[IndyColtsFan]

A: Yes. Brady's refusal to cooperate with the Wells investigators and his destruction of his cell phone on the same day that he was to be interviewed by Wells were extremely important in Goodell's decision. Goodell said that the destruction of the cell phone was "very troubling." He added that it was clear that Brady made an "affirmative effort to conceal relevant evidence and to undermine the investigation." And Goodell took his reasoning one step further when he wrote that Brady's destruction of the phone "gives rise to an inference that information from his cellphone, if it were available, would further demonstrate [Brady's] direct knowledge of and involvement with the scheme to tamper with the game balls, just as he concealed for months the fact that he had destroyed the cellphone requested by the investigators."

Since no one answered my original question (WHY was Brady suspended), I'll refer them to the bolded text above. What I was getting at is this - Brady was nailed more for his lack of cooperation, evasion, etc. than the actual balls being deflated. If he would've just copped to it the first time, Goodell would've slapped him on the wrist and been done.

LOL @ Patriots fans trying to claim things like "Oh, uh, Brady always destroys his cell phone when he gets a new one!" Assuming the bolded text is accurate - yeah, he JUST HAPPENED to get a new cell phone ON THE EXACT SAME DAY of his interview with Wells. My oh my, what a terrible and unfortunate coincidence for poor Tommy! The poor boy must walk around with a black cloud hovering over his head to warrant that kind of bad luck! I'm sure that evil mastermind Gisele was behind it all, right Patriots fans?

I don't have any idea what a federal judge will do, if anything at all. I really don't care either, though I will admit that I will get a good laugh if he upholds Goodell's suspension of Brady (though I do think Goodell is an asshat).

 

[zinfamous]

I still think the NFLPA will sue and win. Goddell isn't an impartial arbiter.

lol. reading that, I was thinking...did I know this before? I seem to recall something ridiculous like Brady's accuser and punisher acting as the arbitrator in the appeal, but it still looks ridiculous.

 

[waggy]

lol. reading that, I was thinking...did I know this before? I seem to recall something ridiculous like Brady's accuser and punisher acting as the arbitrator in the appeal, but it still looks ridiculous.

I have to admit this is the one reason I am pulling for brady. oh and the lulz.

 

[SP33Demon]

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally Posted by IndyColtsFan
Tell me, WHY was Brady suspended?

my understanding is the punishment is for failing to cooperate in his own persecution.

 

[IronWing]

I just hope the next Superman utters the expression, "Great Brady's balls!"

 

[darkswordsman17]

The funniest part about all of this is that all sides look like total fucking idiots, especially the fans. The entire thing is a total farce, but people are gobbling it up. If it wasn't for the abundance of idiocy, I'd almost even say that it was all a plan by the NFL (including the teams). People go apeshit over something stupid like this and it helps distract people from stuff like the domestic violence and other bullshit. The NFL looks like they're doing something to uphold the integrity of the game, and no one is going to really say that it mattered enough (this is even sillier than the video recordings) to do anything serious like strip wins (or in this case a championship). It riles up the Boston fucking idiots, Goodell once again gets to be a lightning rod and take the heat while the owners and players can play at being victims of his tyranny.

Unfortunately I think the people involved are actually too stupid to pull it off, but then maybe that's just what they want. After all the Pats got another ring... :biggrin:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

my understanding is the punishment is for failing to cooperate in his own persecution.

Exactly. His suspension was more for his lack of cooperation and evasiveness than for the balls being deflated. Even if he were 100% innocent at this stage, Goodell SHOULD kick his ass for being an uncooperative asshole. You can spin the story any way you want, you can chastise Goodell any number of ways, but the fact of the matter is, Brady was being an asshole and intentionally being uncooperative. If he were so innocent, why not cooperate?

You guys all know damn well that he was fully aware of what was going on and are trying to make ridiculous arguments and perform all sorts of ridiculous mental acrobatics to support him - just like we've come to expect from Patriots fans with each new scandal. Again, why not cooperate with the NFL in the investigation? Why destroy your cell phone on (if that article mentioned earlier is accurate) the exact same day as your interview with Wells? I mean, that doesn't look bad at all. Nope, NOT AT ALL! It is ENTIRELY normal to destroy your cell phone on the day of a trial/investigation/etc.

All he had to do was say "Yep, I was aware" and Goodell would've slapped him on the wrist and this would've ended weeks ago. As a matter-of-fact, I just saw a story that Goodell offered to reduce the suspension to as low as one game if Brady would do what he should've done from the beginning - admit it and say he was sorry.

 

[SP33Demon]

 

[Phoenix86]

destroying the phone proves he cheated in exactly the same way it proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster - it doesn't.

Ya know, this like stuck with me yesterday. Technically correct, because you're right it doesn't prove he cheated.

It's a "crime" on it's own. If this were an actual law being violated he'd have a separate charge. Of course it's a civil proceeding, but that doesn't mean you can go and destroy evidence either. It's causes just as many problems in a civil case, it just doesn't have the same weight as a in a criminal case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Ya know, this like stuck with me yesterday. Technically correct, because you're right it doesn't prove he cheated.

It's a "crime" on it's own. If this were an actual law being violated he'd have a separate charge. Of course it's a civil proceeding, but that doesn't mean you can go and destroy evidence either. It's causes just as many problems in a civil case, it just doesn't have the same weight as a in a criminal case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference, or by other corrective measures, depending on the jurisdiction.

The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had "consciousness of guilt" or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.[2]

This.

Just more mental gymnastics from Pats fans. Of course it technically doesn't "prove" he cheated, but he was effectively destroying evidence as you quoted above. If he was so innocent, why destroy it? Why not exonerate himself? I think we all know why he destroyed it, including Patriots fans but they'd rather wallow in their tears of delusion instead.

I've said it before and I'll keep repeating it - an article linked earlier in the thread said he destroyed it THE SAME DAY AS HIS INTERVIEW with Wells. Go ahead and spin that Patriots fans - I need the lulz today.

 

[emperus]

And you would think that this is a technology forum. Some of these responses. Texts live on both devices. The investigators had access to the phones of both locker room attendants. What more could they have gleamed from Tom Brady's phone. Or are they trying to argue that Brady was talking to someone else. It seems like this is more of a tactic to elicit more Powers against the Union on the back of Brady.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

And you would think that this is a technology forum. Some of these responses. Texts live on both devices. The investigators had access to the phones of both locker room attendants. What more could they have gleamed from Tom Brady's phone. Or are they trying to argue that Brady was talking to someone else. It seems like this is more of a tactic to elicit more Powers against the Union on the back of Brady.

Spin! Spin! Spin that argument round and round!