I rather like "Personal Foul". Lol. In the "Puppy Bowl", a personal foul is when a puppy poops or pees on the gridiron. Lol.

LOL! Two of my teams are "Hail Mary." Another is "Offsides." Another is "Distant Thunder." The others aren't so imaginative. I may use "Personal Foul," next year!

rhizo, another example, let's take the jaywalking example above. Most people know that, technically, jaywalking is illegal and can result in a fine, let's say up to $25. However most people Jaywalk, likely because it is very, very rare that doing so actually results in an arrest and fine, but also because it's a minor offense with a minor penalty..

But let's say Pillog, rather than getting a ticket for jaywalking, was arrested, tried, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Her lawyer, then appeals and argues that the 25-year prison sentence is not within the bounds of the penal law of her state as a punishment for jaywalking and that the judge overstepped his authority when he handed down that punishment. I would agree with her lawyer. Would you really say that, Pillog should not have jaywalked if she didn't want a 25-year prison sentence, even though all she knew was that the penalty for Jaywalking, and the penalty within the actual penal law judges are beholden to does not allow for a 25-year penalty for jaywalking, and that she was wrong to appeal the judge's ruling and should have just gone to prison of 25 years???

Wow. Not me.

"Oh my, get a life Tibbrix :) Being a rabid sports fan is so, well, laughable."

I'm not hanging out on a thread I have no interest in just to dig at some stranger on the Internet, Jason. That would be you, and others here, doing that. Now THAT is not having a life. At least I only go to threads in which I have an interest (your approval of what I am interested in and like, i.e.: sports, is of no concern of mine. I'd rather be a "rabid" sports than than a person who peruses threads I am NOT interested in simply to personally bash someone. If you're not interested in sports, ignore a thread that is about sports and find one that is more to your liking. And I promise, if the thread you start is about the fun of going onto Web forums just to find some poor target for personal attacks, I won't comment on it because that sort of thing is of no interest to me. And just as you find being a sports fan pathetic, so do I find people like yourself and Mayflowers, who derive some bizarre thrill out of personally attacking someone just for the sake of doing so, pathetic and evidence of needing a life. So we cancel each other out.

Now, run along and start a thread of your own interest. No one has forced you to open, read, or comment on a thread about something in which you say you have no interest.

Suzi, I like "Hail Mary". How about "Deflate Bait"? Lol.

Love it! Here's your big challenge. Go to fantsy.nfl.com, join for free, join a standard team, and YOU use "Deflate Bait!" I have the maximum amount of teams this year.

Well, tibbrix, I gotta give it to you. You're persistent. I recall the 1985 superbowl clearly, most boring game ever and I was a Chicago fan at the time. I have since defected across the border to much loved/hated Packers. We are in a world of hurt before the season even starts, although they looked pretty good last night. I'm sure we can agree on one thing, and that is that we are so excited football is back!!

Suzi, alas, I'm not into Fantasy Football. My big waste-'o-time is GW!

sleeper, GB? With 27 cheats V. Patriots 20? You gave me the impression that you have zero tolerance for a team that cheats.

I'm not "persistent", btw. I'm correcting VERY misleading, incorrect, and outright fallacious comments made here, which is a normal thing to do. and I'm commenting on a thread on a Web forum. That's what people do. this is not the only thread on GW with multiple comments. I've never understood why people think they should be able to say outright false things, deceptive things, etc., but the person who corrects the is "persistent" or the troublemaker. So strange.

Regardless, since I have a sense of proportion when it comes to things like cheating and meting out punishment, I can honestly say to you, "good luck to your Packers!" Here's to a great season.

Tibbrix, I think I did understand what you meant, but I might not have backed up my understanding of it very well. That a jaywalking sized infraction deserved a jaywalking kind of punishment.

You're correct. Hoopla driven pronouncements of punishment are out of place in any system where there are specific rules in place for how an infraction of the rules of the game will be handled. Football is a business where everyone involved works under contract, and the rules of those contracts, including collective agreements, must be followed.

But this thread has turned into a bear-baiting show. People poke you and you growl. So they poke you some more. It's not nice.

If you're having fun, please continue. If you feel backed against a wall with sticks coming at you from all sides, I will draw a line right here beyond which you do not need to respond. You can exit through the gate behind you and let the people with the sticks battle it out amongst themselves.

tibbrix

Oh, I chuckled when I saw this post listed ---- Figured you must be having a boring day and just wanted to see what came out. The Brady / Pats haters are going to hate. Very few of them are interested in understanding the quirks of the Well's report. I am not a FB fan, but I do love the excitement when we have a winning team. Everyone else in my family IS a big Pats fan. And Brady impresses me for the most part - one example is how he keeps giving away a lot of his salary back to the team to better support the Pats' ability to attract players with great potential.

AND I do think it's bad form for people to so strongly bash a competitor of their fav team without checking out its own history of 'cheating'.

Sports for many folks are about emotions and stats ---- not about the back story OR about who really knows the rule book inside and out and can squeeze every opportunity out of it. Knowledge is power IMO. Let the fun times roll on. (Has anyone mentioned that the NFL took the case to the NY court because they felt it was 'friendly' to them based on past rulings?)

Oh Tibbrix, give it up already. There are 70 posts on this thread, mostly by you. Don't you get it? People don't care about Tom Brady. People think he's a cheater. Trying to change people's minds about this would be like talking to a person who is a particular political party and trying to change them into a different party. Ain't gonna happen. Tom Brady is viewed as a liar and a cheater, and people aren't going to change their minds about it. Give it a rest already.

'However most people Jaywalk, likely because it is very, very rare that doing so actually results in an arrest and fine, but also because it's a minor offense with a minor penalty.''

Tibbrix, you consider a $197 citation for jaywalking to be a minor penalty? Wow. I admit to being rather shocked by that. How many more thousands would have to be cited per year before you would no longer consider it rare?

To whomever is holding a gun to sephia_wa's head and forcing him/her to read/comment on this thread, please stop.

pickyshopper, I don't quite understand the people saying the don't care/like Tom Brady or football...coming onto a thread about Tom Brady and football to tell someone to "give it a rest" because no one cares about Tom Brady/football!

Lol. Wow.

I think I'll go onto the threads about roses and tell people to shut up about roses because no one cares about roses.

lol.

Exactly right, Picky, too, that it is very odd that people want to be able to spit out false accusations, demonstrably false or contradictory claims, hold double standards themselves while bashing another...but that other is the one criticized for challenging them and correcting them and told to "give it up"!. Wee-yahd.

I was not aware that the "issue" was detected and rectified by
half-time. In light of that I think an appropriate punishment would
have been: All points scored with the intentionally under-inflated balls should have been nullified. The effect of which would have been Patriots win 28 to 7, done and done. Off to the Superbowl.

I do think Tom Brady took some action (or directed some action to be taken) to contravene the rules, in the hopes of gaining some small competitive advantage. I think in all likelihood the actual effect of the under-inflation was likely close to zero. Even the mental boost of knowing the ball is more to your liking, and therefore believing you are throwing better, and therefore actually throwing better is probably not very large, and is also demonstrably irrelevant since they scored sufficient points in the second half to win the game, after the balls were properly re-inflated. Is it possible that Tom Brady wasn't aware the balls were re-inflated at halftime and believed he was using under-inflated balls, and therefore played better -- sure its possible -- but that is IMHO no more cheating than wearing lucky socks.

I think the NFL handled the situation poorly, and the proposed punishment of a 4 game suspension was greatly disproportionate to the severity of the infraction, given that it can be shown to have had no effect on the outcome. Especially when the punishment is compared to those it meted out to others for their respective infractions.

Part of me wonders if this was the plan all along. To generate endless press coverage over a minor issue, to distract attention from other things in football (concussions, off-field behavior, millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners over veritable piles of money), to cause uproar (for and against) with an unprecedentedly harsh punishment, knowing that in all likelihood the punishment would be thrown out. To cast the Patriots in a role of villain so that whether they're rooting for them or booing them at least everyone is watching. If so perhaps Roger Goodell is a diabolical genius.

More likely though he (Roger Goodell) is a mean-spirited tin pot dictator, stamping his little feet and holding his breath, trying to make it all about him.

Tibbrix I'll look forward to games the Patriots play this year. Depending on who they are playing, and how I feel at the time, I may root for them, or against them, but it will likely be an enjoyable game to watch either way.

Hey Tibbrix, you were just such an easy target , I just couldn't help myself. Its cocktail time where I live and I'll toast to your loyalty - happy football season to you!

Just picked my 2nd fantasy team, and I did pick Brady! Excited to see how the season plays out. I do have a backup. Alex somebody... :-)

Here you go, Suzi. For your TB12:

OK, I see. I need "Inflate Gate." Donald Trump already nailed that one. Inflate my ego? Jeeze.

I agree with Sephia, Tom Brady is viewed as a liar and a cheater, as is Belechick, and people aren't going to change their minds about it. PATRIOTS 20I5 SUPERBOWL RING:

But it could be worse - at least they didn't sign Michael Vick.

"To whomever is holding a gun to sephia_wa's head and forcing him/her to read/comment on this thread, please stop."

I've enjoyed the entertainment value of this thread. You still should give it a rest. No one cares about Tom Brady except you.

Sincerely hope the Patriots get their cheating butts kicked this season.

By whom, pipsmom?

By every team they play!

Ha ha, KNEW I shouldn't have mentioned I was a Packer's fan!! If you look at their "cheats" many were decades ago. I do remember clearly the game where the announcers were talking about how Aaron Rodgers likes to OVERINFLATE the balls and I thought that was really odd at the time being as it seems it would make the ball harder to catch, especially in cold weather. You see, unlike you, I am a true fan and actually watch all of my team's games. And I can rationalize what is cheating just as well as you can. If it's a well known fact and not done surreptitiously, is it cheating? I guess we will agree to disagree on this one. Love the superbowl ring, lmao

"You see, unlike you, I am a true fan and actually watch all of my team's games. "

Hmmmm...thank you for letting me know I am not a true fan and don't actually watch all of 'my" team's games. I had absolutely no idea that was the case. And I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion.

"OVERINFLATE the balls and I thought that was really odd at the time being as it seems it would make the ball harder to catch, especially in cold weather."

Yes, so it's interesting that Brady's game actually improved, by a lot, in the second half of that game, after the low-air low-air balls were discovered and they were playing with fully-inflated footballs. Four TDs in the second half by Brady with fully inflated footballs. As someone noted, w/o the first half, Pats would have won 28-7.

So, not sure how you get that I've "rationalized cheating". Nothing to rationalize. Brady did BETTER with the fully inflated footballs, and the Patriots would have beaten the Colts WORSE had the footballs been at full inflation in the first half, based on Brady's stats for that game. So what's to rationalize? you're the one who mantioned the Patriots' "History of cheating" while now rationalizing the Packers' "history of cheating". I never said anything about it one way or another, other than saying, truthfully, that 1.5 lbs of air in a football is not going to throw a game, regardless of the team that does it, especially that game - again, shown that Patriots played BETTER so would have won by a wider margin, once the balls were fully inflated, so maybe the Colts should be thanking Brady for not humiliating them as badly as he could have! Lol.

This thread was on the judge's decision, not about litigating whether Brady tampered with footballs or not. The judge's decision was sound and the right decision.

As for your "GB's cheating doesn't count because it was long in the past" nonsense. For one thing, false. "2008 - 2014" is hardly "many decades ago". Second, according to the site, it was WORSE cheating than what Brady may or may not have done with deflate gate. Read the excerpt. third. Explain why the league took Brady and the Patriots to task with such a severe punishment on very weak evidence "Brady likely had some idea..."? Since when is that evidence? but did nothing about Rodgers's over inflating the balls and possibly with the help of the officials?

Inflategate - Aaron Rodgers/Green Bay Packers

"VICTIM: The entire league

PUNISHED? No but ... it's more probable than not that this was cheating

PUNISHMENT: Rodgers' ball-manipulation is different than what Tom Brady was accused of being "at least generally aware" of. Rodgers inflated his footballs to an illegal level before the game-day inspection and hoped that the illegal balls slipped by an unsuspecting official. More seriously, based on Simms report, the officials may actually have conspired to help Rodgers by adding a puff of air for him.

Said Simms: "You know, the officials do check those footballs and sometimes maybe even get lucky and put an extra half pound of air in there to help Aaron Rodgers out." This is a very serious charge. Are the officials helping some quarterbacks cheat?"

So, presumably, you believe Rodgers should received a four-game suspension and the Packers a $1 million fine, right, Sleeper? Why no case then?

oh, and to add, it is much worse to overinflate a football because, as you say, it makes it HARDER to hold onto in cold weather, versus lessening the air, which makes it easier. So Rodgers subjected both teams to what was HIS liking but which made it harder for everyone else, while Brady's alleged deflating for his liking also made it easier for everyone on both teams to hold onto the ball.

So, I'm very curious about this double standard going on here and why it doesn't raise suspicions for you as to what went on here.

And the drama continues. LMAO!

I know a lot of you have your minds made up about Brady's guilt or innocence, and that's fine, it's your complete right to hold that opinion. But I do have a problem with how some of you hang on to those opinions without citing to any evidence or facts to back them up. When we resort to name calling and put-downs, it sucks the life out of the thread for everyone else who IS interested in the debate. If you don't want to hear others' opinions on the matter or if this is too much drama for you, then click away. No one is forcing you here.

That said, there is one objective person who spent weeks studying and analyzing the evidence and he concluded there was no proof that Brady was aware the balls were being under inflated. Nor was there proof that under inflation happened in any game except the playoff game. He accepted Brady's explanation that the phone was destroyed, not to get rid of evidence, but because as a famous person his phone is often subject to hacking attempts and it is his practice to destroy the phones on a regular basis. He provided proof of this to the judge.

Then the judge even took it one step further. He said even if Brady was generally aware, it still does not constitute a violation of NFL rules. Actively under inflating balls is prohibited, but the NFL has no rule that says in effect, "if you are generally aware that someone else has committed a violation of these rules, then you are subject to XXXX punishment." So, while I don't think the jaywalking example is entirely accurate, I will try to use it anyway: You are standing on a street corner and you see a person jaywalk. You do not go to a cop to report it. Upon review of the traffic video cam, the police see you watching that person jaywalk and then they want to punish you for not having alerted them to the jaywalking in the first place. THAT is what the judge said is not prohibited in NFL rules. So, if it's not in the rules, and even if Brady was generally aware, he was within the rules of the game and therefore, not a cheater.

Agree with Jay! Let's get on with football! Brady is no longer suspended. Woo Hoo! I did pick him as my QB on one of my fantasy football teams. I'm hoping he socks it to em!

Correct, Jay, but the judge also determined that the punishment of suspending Brady for four games violated the tenets of the Collective Bargaining Agreement as far as punishment for such a violation goes. Herman basically said that Goodell pulled that penalty out of thin air and had absolutely not basis for doing so, and in fact failed in his obligation to stay within the guidelines of the CBA and that he did not. That was a big factor in Berman's decision. The point of the jaywalking analogy was that, judges can't mete out punishments on a whim. They have to go by the Code of Penal Justice, or whatever it's called in each state. So if a penalty for jaywalking is a $15 fine, a judge can't, on his or her own simply decide to inflict a punishment of 25 years in prison for jaywalking. And that is what Berman determined Goodell had done to Brady.

Having also learned about "Inflategate", the Aaron Rodgers situation of over inflating football to his liking, it only further makes me wonder what really went on here with this "deflate gate" thing. Rodgers' overinflation is worse than underinflation, for reasons mentioned above, and it apparently went on for years, the broadcaster spoke about it on national television, even that site above deems it much more serious than Brady's "deflate gate" because the implication is that officials were involved in the over inflating of Rodgers's footballs. you do have to ask yourself, then, what Goodell's real agenda was here with Brady and the Patriots. It just makes no sense at all. Sleeper, who was very vocal in her opposition to Brady, has gotten very quiet where "her" QB and team are concerned: more cheating than the Pats; more serious inflation scandal than Brady's....silence. Curious. Some people just hate for the sake of hating.

As for Sephia and her gang, at first glance, you scratch your head and think what you said, that no one is forcing anyone to read or comment on a thread they say they have no interest in and was started by someone they clearly dislike. But then you realize, they're like barnacles hitching a ride on a whale: they see a screen name that makes them foam at at the mouth, and proceed to glom onto a thread just to target and bully the individual, not the content. And for reasons I don't understand, it is sport for them (they admit to being "amused") to act out their hatred for anonymous strangers on a Web forum. So it's just about hate for them. Very unfortunate, and kind of psycho. Part and parcel of participating in Web forums. I believe the term is "cyberbullies". I do not understand why being mean and bullying people is so much fun for so many people. Not how I was raised.

Now, on with the show! May the best team win. Pats against Steelers Thurs. night, Brady at the helm. Yikes!

Go Steelers!

Pittsburgh, pipsmom? With their 40 cheats to the Patriots 20? With their ten "real cheats" to the Patriots six? With their ratings of four cameras - meaning very severe cheating - to deflategae's ZERO cameras, meaning not serious at all?

Hmmm....

What amused me is not what others had to say. I wasn't taking pleasure at what you perceived as digs at you. I doubt that really has any affect anyway judging by how much you love to argue with people. Your argument style in this thread is what amused me. It was so Classic Tibbrix.

Maybe the problem is you see bullying in every disagreement, or maybe it's just a claim to win some type of sympathy. One would think you have some type of persecution complex, but then you probably wouldn't dish it out so freely yourself. I think people who read your posts know what you're all about, so I'd really stop playing the innocent victim here.

Speaking of cyber bully stalkers...

I was surprised to see that stuff was still being posted to this thread. I had hoped it had lost its steam and that folks could return to a somewhat normal life. And, it was nice to see that you recently seemed to claim to want to put the arguing to rest, and to just enjoy football. You even said, "Now, on with the show! May the best team win. Pats against Steelers Thurs. night, Brady at the helm." But when PipsMom49 responded with "Go Steelers!" you came right back with "Pittsburgh, pipsmom? With their 40 cheats to the Patriots 20? With their ten "real cheats" to the Patriots six? With their ratings of four cameras - meaning very severe cheating - to deflategae's ZERO cameras, meaning not serious at all? "

You have just shown us all that you do not want to stop the arguing -- that you will beat a dead horse until it is completely dead (as if simply dead isn't enough), and that you apparently have a serious crush on Brady.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, scream and yell and say all sorts of nasty things to me. I won't be back into this thread to read it. You, and Tom-the-cheat Brady simply aren't worth it.

Don't forget Bill-the-cheat Belichick.

pipsmom is back to hating cheating? After cheering for the Steelers?

Curious.

I was trying to play nice, tibbrix, but you are just someone with too much time on your hands and too much anger in your life. Peace out

Wait a sec, sleeper. These are your comments:

"sleeperblues

The patriots have a history of cheating. Spying on other teams signal calling, pumping sound into the stadium so opposing teams can't hear the plays called, deflategate. All of Boston should be agog that you have a team and a coach that promotes a culture of cheating, a culture of win at all costs. Pathetic!"

"sleeperblues

Then I guess that just makes the patsies the dumbest team for getting caught so many times, ha ha"

"sleeperblues

He's a shifty dude, and the Patriots are a dirty team."

1) That's playing nice?

2) you only started "playing nice" when I pointed out that your Packers have cheated more and more severely, including Rodgers's over-inflating footballs, and asked you to reconcile your above nasty comments and harsh judgement re: Brady and the Patriots with your supporting the cheering on the Packers. And the only reason you started "playing nice" (btw, I'm the one who wished your Packers well. It was not the other way around) is because you can't reconcile those two things. well, good, that's fine, but people who cast stones shouldn't live in glass houses, as the saying goes, and that is what happened here.

"...but you are just someone with too much time on your hands and too much anger in your life."

Must be more of that "playing nice" thing.

Here you go, Pipsmom, the team you're cheering on even as you castigate another for cheating:

Impedegate (2013) to top ⤴home ⇐awards ⤵

TEAM: The Pittsburgh Steelers

SEVERITY:

SUMMARY: With 6:26 left in the third quarter of their 2013 Thanksgiving night game in Pittsburgh -- aka The Paris of Appalachia -- Baltimore Ravens receiver Jacoby Jones took a kickoff back and had to alter his path because Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin had stepped onto the field. Jones returned the kick 73 yards, but was tackled by defensive back Cortez Allen on the play, and Baltimore had to settle for a field goal on the drive.

Said NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino: "In that instance, the referee could basically penalize the team whatever he deems equitable, which could include giving the Ravens a touchdown. That's not the case here, but certainly coach Tomlin was in the white. He should have been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct."

In December 2010, the league fined the New York Jets the same amount after a sideline wall established by strength coach Sal Alosi resulted in Alosi tripping Dolphins cornerback Nolan Carroll. Alosi was suspended indefinitely by the team and resigned in January 2011.

VICTIM: Baltimore Ravens (Specifically, WR Jacoby Jones)

PUNISHED? Yes

PUNISHMENT: Pittsburgh Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin was fined $100,000

________________________________________________________________

I guess this is what happens when being right is more important than being kind and considerate towards others. I am reminded of the Big Lebowski movie.

Self stimulation.

Flame Warriors

Ferous Cranus

I apologize for hijacking Mayflowers's latest and Sephia's, et al, "I loathe Tibbrix" thread by yammering about football and an issue that's been in the news lately.

I also apologize to those who are apparently forced to read and comment on threads they have no interest in and by OPs they despise. I had no idea that went on on GW as I've always been able to voluntarily read and comment only on threads I choose to while also voluntarily ignoring commenters I have a personal distaste for, rather than hijacking threads of theirs to vomit up my hatred for them.

Meantime, can someone just start a "I hate Tibbrix thread", maybe over in hot topics, so this gang o' charmers have an official place to vent? Remember, Mayflowers, et al, spent four days on a thread about a sick child bashing me, and I hadn't even commented in those four days, so it seems like such a thread is needed.

I fully support it.

Football isn't a hot topic in my home. I seldom know who is playing on any given Sunday or which QB is having an outstanding season unless I happen to catch something on the news or in the paper.

I don't harbor any animosity toward Tom Brady or the Patriots (although I do keep wanting to call him Pat Brady). And I have no clue why I keep reading this thread. But I've decided to add my sixpence......

Pro sports is a big business and I think just about any player will cheat if they think it will give them a significant advantage. It reminds me of the Class Valedictorian in my son's class. DS happened to mention to me years after graduation that the Valedictorian cheated all through school. I was stunned. This was an exceptionally bright kid, tremendous SAT scores, varsity athlete , a class leader. DS told me that the kid cheated to guarantee his grades and that he would probably still have been #1 in his class.

Perhaps the analogy doesn't perfectly fit here but as I said...it's my thought. As for the Cheating Chart, if I understand it correctly - that's just the teams that were caught and may not be an adequate reflection of any individual team's actions.

And this is my all time favorite article on football. It has nothing to do with Tibbrix's post but it is an eye-opener on the game itself.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406

I know. "2-minute warning" is more like, "You still have time to go grocery shopping before the game ends."

Personally, I'm too chicken to post threads on things that interest me, as I'm admittedly afraid of being labelled as 'argumentative.' It seems that if an OP presents their opinion on something, it is considered argumentative if they defend their view with counterpoints to each opposing opinion. So how are we determining that one person is 'argumentative' for continuously defending their stance, yet those presenting opposing views are apparently merely 'responding' and not considered argumentative? I see it as each equally defending their contention and don't assume that either is trying to convert people, so why the bias?

I realize this is an adult forum and I'm no longer in my high school debate club, but I do respect the integrity a good debate follows. A basic mandatory rule in any rebuttal is unfortunately not always the fashion here. It is: No ad hominem attacks. Attack the idea, not the person.

Regardless, I don't plan on giving up on forums despite being uncomfortable with personal criticisms between posters, as I so much appreciate the diverse subject matter that (braver than me) people contribute here, which affords me such easy access to the latest current news, without even having to turn on my T.V.!

You noticed that too, picky shopper, that discussing the actual topic of the thread is being argumentative, needing to be right, etc., but seeking out the OP of a thread just to bust in and launch a platform to attack the OP personally, NO mention of the topic of the thread, just sheer hatred for a stranger on a Web forum, is not a problem for some here. I can't figure that out. As for the topic of a discussion. are we all supposed to just agree with each other?? Sounds boring, closed minded, and like a desire to remain willfully ignorant.

No, being right is not always important, but being consistent is. To point out inconsistencies is not argumentative, but to lack honesty and integrity about one's inconsistencies and not explain them or acknowledge them is cowardly and points to another agenda. Pointing out inconsistencies in arguments having to do with the topic is also not attacking anyone or an ad hominem attack. It's, as you say, countering an argument and staying within the topic. But, this thread became fraught with double standards, both on the topic and off, which means there has also been a whole lot of lack of honesty.